XiXiDu comments on How would you respond to the Philpapers "What are your Philosophical Positions" Survey? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (37)
Yes, if we're talking about extrasensory perceptions. I am pretty sure some of what we know is genetically programmed and therefore not a direct result of sensory perceptions. I guess a Boltzmann brain would have to agree.
I think this is asking if the Mathematical universe hypothesis is true/false. I can't answer that, I would have to think about it. If someone would force me to answer then I'd pick Platonism (objects such as numbers and points exist naturally), because that sounds cool I guess.
Both.
Huh?
Whatever.
"...non-skeptical realism is the philosophical understanding that things exist independent of the mind and that it is possible to say something meaningful about them." Hell, if I answer Yes to Platonism I can hardly deny reality now? I actually don't think it makes much sense asking such questions except if you enjoy philosophy for the sake of it.
Bring me a good definition of what is meant by "free will" and I will attempt to answer this question. I wish people would just drop that term.
Given only those choices I pick atheism of course. I first wanted to write "Probabilism" until I noticed it is a real philosophical doctrine that I don't agree with.
I don't understand?
I think none of those.
...?
Dunno.
Couldn't bother to read up on it.
Some sort of agent-dependent realism. My beliefs and knowledge of the associated terminology are too vague.
Naturalism means "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world" and "the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world." People who doubt this must be really confused.
Physicalism if non-physicalism means something like "supernatural"...I guess that if you doubt it even for a second it means that you have a bad philosophical cold. But ideas like Platonism just sound so cool that it makes me want to believe although it is probably not even wrong as there is no justification either logically or practically to believe such a thing. But if I accept Platonism, e.g. that there exist timeless mathematical patterns, then it is hard to see how they could be regarded as "physical".
Cognitivism, there are moral statements that are objectively true or false. But I still think those objective facts are dependent on the existence of different agents and not some sort of "natural laws". For example, it is an objective fact that I assign moral value to non-human beings and it is an objective fact that a paperclip maximizer doesn't. Maybe I am confused here, don't know.
I still don't know what this is supposed to mean. But I believe that our motivations to make moral statements are blurred between internal and external causations. Our moral intuitions are a fact about our genetic makeup, upbringing, education, culture and the circumstances.
One box.
Subjective consequentialism.
I have no idea what all this means. The time I took to think about consciousness so far didn't allow me to wrap my mind around that topic.
Utility-function. We are what we want, our values and goals.
None of the above.
I wouldn't name my child Fregean or Millian.
Survival.
Hmm...
Switch.
Don't know.
Inconceivable (for me at least).