Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What professional philosophers believe – Survey results

philpapers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–115 of 115 posts

Re: What professional philosophers believe – Survey results

#111

Post by pbhjpbhj »

jules wrote: post #108
Zikes wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could create a replica that's exactly the same atom-for-atom, but it would still be a replica. Destroying the original at the source would make it a 'teletransporter', and not destroying the original at the source would make it a 'duplicator'. By any external measure the replica could be functionally and physically identical to the original, but so long as new matter is used it would still be a replica.

Physically there isn't really a difference between new matter and old matter. Suppose that instead of moving an electron from A to B, you destroyed an electron at A and created one at B (through some kind of reaction between other fundamental particles). There isn't really a physical difference between the two resulting situations. Unlike conventional objects, electrons can't be marked or otherwise identified, they a…

I rather like the related concept Feynman promoted, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe.

Re: What professional philosophers believe – Survey results

#112

Post by pbhjpbhj »

memla wrote: post #57
gadders wrote: post #51

I was hoping to see absolute or relative moral values, but couldn't find it on there.

No, but there is a question concerning moral realism. Since moral relativism is a type of moral anti-realism which is entertained by 27.7% of respondents, it follows that less than 27.7% philosophers are relativists.

0).

Re: What professional philosophers believe – Survey results

#114

Post by snowwrestler »

spenrose wrote: post #74

Time to reread my favorite pg essay: http://paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

It's a great essay but this passage highlights to me the sillyness of philosophy:

> I learned that I don't exist. I am (and you are) a collection of cells that lurches around driven by various forces, and calls itself I. But there's no central, indivisible thing that your identity goes with. You could conceivably lose half your brain and live. Which means your brain could conceivably be split into two halves and each transplanted into different bodies. Imagine waking up after such an operation. You have to imagine being two people.

Take a living person and excise part of their brain, and they will continue to live. There have been accidents, injuries, and surgeries that have proven that. I don't know about fully half, but I would not be surprised if it worked.

BUT - take half a brain and transplant it into a different body? There is zero evidence today that that is even possible.

One might say that such technology just hasn't been invented yet. True. But maybe it will never be invented; and thus it's really science fiction disguised as philosophy. I think quite a lot of philosophy ends up being disguised fiction--science or otherwise.

Re: What professional philosophers believe – Survey results

#115

Post by Herring »

knowtheory wrote: post #101
Herring wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it's sad really. I guess it depends what your priorities are. There's fighting off philosophical arguments, and there's getting things done. Too much emphasis on either one reduces your ability to do the other.

Fighting off philosophical arguments is a fundamental part of politics and convincing other people that you are right. You're also right that there's only so much time in the day, but it depends on who you have to go through to get stuff done. Who do you need money, or approval from.

Ah, I see your point. You're right. If it's studying philosophy to convince other people then I'm in.
Post reply on HN