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.
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?
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.
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?
Both.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?
Huh?
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?
Whatever.
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?
″...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.
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?
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.
God: theism or atheism?
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.
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?
I don’t understand?
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?
I think none of those.
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?
...?
Logic: classical or non-classical?
Dunno.
Mental content: internalism or externalism?
Couldn’t bother to read up on it.
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?
Some sort of agent-dependent realism. My beliefs and knowledge of the associated terminology are too vague.
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?
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.
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?
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”.
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?
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.
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?
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.
Newcomb’s problem: one box or two boxes?
One box.
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?
Subjective consequentialism.
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?
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.
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?
Utility-function. We are what we want, our values and goals.
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?
None of the above.
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?
I wouldn’t name my child Fregean or Millian.
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?
Survival.
Time: A-theory or B-theory?
Hmm...
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don’t switch?
Switch.
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?
Don’t know.
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?
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).