mirror of
https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
synced 2024-07-01 10:46:49 +02:00
minor updates to survey
This commit is contained in:
parent
03f6ecd569
commit
b393b0d171
|
@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Just a few thoughts on my answers to PhilPapers excellent [survey] for
|
Just a few thoughts on my answers to PhilPapers excellent [survey] for
|
||||||
philosophers. I'll explain my positions somewhat and almost certainly go into
|
philosophers. I'll explain my positions somewhat and almost certainly go into
|
||||||
more details in separate articles.
|
more details in future articles [citation needed].
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Background
|
Background
|
||||||
==========
|
==========
|
||||||
|
@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ Background
|
||||||
Philosophically, my strongest early influence comes from Satanism and
|
Philosophically, my strongest early influence comes from Satanism and
|
||||||
Discordianism. I tried to, but never really got Nietzsche and felt very much at
|
Discordianism. I tried to, but never really got Nietzsche and felt very much at
|
||||||
home when reading Robert Anton Wilson. Later on, I picked up many Buddhist
|
home when reading Robert Anton Wilson. Later on, I picked up many Buddhist
|
||||||
influences (many distinctly Zen) and some Taoism. I belong to no school of
|
influences (Zen at first, later mostly Theravada) and some Taoism. I belong to
|
||||||
thought and my belief system is very idiosyncratic, with most pieces coming from
|
no school of thought and my belief system is very idiosyncratic, with most
|
||||||
Theravada Buddhism, Discordianism and different schools of Rationality (mostly
|
pieces coming from Theravada Buddhism, Discordianism and different schools of
|
||||||
Bayesian, though).
|
Rationality (mostly Bayesian, though).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
I was motivated at first by fascinating problems, then making sense of madness
|
I was motivated at first by fascinating problems, then making sense of madness
|
||||||
and currently understanding consciousness and fate[^why_fate].
|
and currently understanding consciousness and fate[^why_fate].
|
||||||
|
@ -22,11 +22,12 @@ and currently understanding consciousness and fate[^why_fate].
|
||||||
To clarify, I'm not interested in "What is fate?", but "Why do I perceive
|
To clarify, I'm not interested in "What is fate?", but "Why do I perceive
|
||||||
the world ordered in a way that is consistent with fate?".
|
the world ordered in a way that is consistent with fate?".
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
In my opinion, the two most important philosopher are the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama,
|
For me, the most important philosophers are the Buddha (who I believe to be
|
||||||
for the three principles of [anatta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta),
|
fiction and do not identify with Siddharta Gautama), for the three principles of
|
||||||
|
[anatta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta),
|
||||||
[anicca](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anicca) and
|
[anicca](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anicca) and
|
||||||
[dukkha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha), and [Wang
|
[dukkha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha), and
|
||||||
Yangming](http://www.iep.utm.edu/wangyang/) for the unity of knowledge and
|
[Wang Yangming](http://www.iep.utm.edu/wangyang/) for the unity of knowledge and
|
||||||
action. Without those, no understanding of the world is ever
|
action. Without those, no understanding of the world is ever
|
||||||
possible.[^understanding]
|
possible.[^understanding]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@ -117,7 +118,7 @@ for trivialism.)
|
||||||
However, more fundamentally, the basic *assumptions* of logic, especially
|
However, more fundamentally, the basic *assumptions* of logic, especially
|
||||||
definite, discrete truth values, seem very questionable to me. I suspect that
|
definite, discrete truth values, seem very questionable to me. I suspect that
|
||||||
most problems in logic today, like the Liar's paradox, Curry's paradox, the
|
most problems in logic today, like the Liar's paradox, Curry's paradox, the
|
||||||
debate around the contradictions and so on, really derive from an
|
debate around contradictions and so on, really derive from an
|
||||||
oversimplification or basic misconception about what is exactly *meant* by truth
|
oversimplification or basic misconception about what is exactly *meant* by truth
|
||||||
and a discrepancy with what we actually *want* it to be.
|
and a discrepancy with what we actually *want* it to be.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@ -148,11 +149,11 @@ No form of pluralism holds up even under mild scrutiny, so they can be safely
|
||||||
rejected. But I simply don't see how physicalism ever *could* explain the
|
rejected. But I simply don't see how physicalism ever *could* explain the
|
||||||
subjective experiences of the mind, so I'm fairly skeptical of this view, too.
|
subjective experiences of the mind, so I'm fairly skeptical of this view, too.
|
||||||
This is, of course, a statement about my understanding and not about the world,
|
This is, of course, a statement about my understanding and not about the world,
|
||||||
so physicalism may very well be right. It is, after all, currently the basic
|
so physicalism may very well be right. It is, after all, currently the best
|
||||||
model in existence. I strongly suspect, though, that a major revolution, similar
|
model in existence. I strongly suspect, though, that a major revolution will be
|
||||||
to quantum physics, will be necessary and that certain universal assumptions,
|
necessary and that certain universal assumptions, like the idea of a "particle"
|
||||||
like the idea of a "particle" in physics a century ago, are fundamentally
|
in physics a century ago, are fundamentally broken. I have no idea *which*
|
||||||
broken. I have no idea *which* assumptions these may be, however.
|
assumptions these may be, however.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
To further clarify, I fully support that "the mind is what the brain does" and
|
To further clarify, I fully support that "the mind is what the brain does" and
|
||||||
there is no such thing as a separate mind floating around somewhere, but I feel
|
there is no such thing as a separate mind floating around somewhere, but I feel
|
||||||
|
@ -193,7 +194,9 @@ is simply wrong.
|
||||||
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?
|
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?
|
||||||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
None. There is no self and no personal identity.
|
Depends on what you mean by "self". One "self" has a name, a job, status,
|
||||||
|
friends, memories and so on. This one is linguistically constructed. Another has
|
||||||
|
experiences. I have no idea how it works.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?
|
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?
|
||||||
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||||
|
@ -221,7 +224,7 @@ Rebirth. Literally. (Similarly to sleep.)
|
||||||
Time: A-theory or B-theory?
|
Time: A-theory or B-theory?
|
||||||
---------------------------
|
---------------------------
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Unsure. I'm not familiar with either.
|
A-theory. B-theory can be useful, but is fundamentally false.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Trolley problem: switch or don't switch?
|
Trolley problem: switch or don't switch?
|
||||||
----------------------------------------
|
----------------------------------------
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue