(I wrote a little summary of my answers to the survey on my site, but they are somewhat outdated and partially confused. I’m in the process of reworking them, just as the rest of the site. These answers in particular have changed quite a lot over time already.)
A priori knowledge: no Abstract objects: neither / invalid question Aesthetic value: subjective Analytic-synthetic distinction: no Epistemic justification: invalid question; “external” is only true if you already know something external exists, so it’s question begging External world: skepticism, with pragmatic realism Free will: no free will God: atheism Knowledge: empiricism, with doubts Knowledge claims: invalid / depends on what you mean by “true” Laws of nature: Humean, i.e. like Hume Logic: strongly non-classical Mental content: invalid / externalism Meta-ethics: moral nihilism (in the sense that there are agent-dependent preferences and that’s it) Metaphilosophy: naturalism, i.e. “there is no magic” Mind: I am completely confused and have no idea, pragmatically computationalism Moral judgment: non-cognitivism (see above) Moral motivation: neither (see above) Newcomb’s problem: one box, duh Normative ethics: none (see above), pragmatically whatever feels nice (lots of consequentialism and recently deontology) Perceptual experience: no idea (see above) Personal identity: neither—I am my experience; I do not identify with my psychology, thoughts or biology, except in a pragmatic sense Politics: no idea / neither, lean towards autocracy, but whatever works is fine by me Proper names: not familiar enough, Frege seems sensible Science: technically anti-realism, pragmatically realism Teletransporter (new matter): probably death, but I’m currently confused Time: strongly lean towards A-theory Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do): lean towards switch, pragmatically probably freeze
Truth: neither / invalid / horribly confused Zombies: currently very confused; I’m working on a complete mapping of the argument and intuitively currently lean towards “conceivable, but not possible in this universe”
(I wrote a little summary of my answers to the survey on my site, but they are somewhat outdated and partially confused. I’m in the process of reworking them, just as the rest of the site. These answers in particular have changed quite a lot over time already.)
A priori knowledge: no
Abstract objects: neither / invalid question
Aesthetic value: subjective
Analytic-synthetic distinction: no
Epistemic justification: invalid question; “external” is only true if you already know something external exists, so it’s question begging
External world: skepticism, with pragmatic realism
Free will: no free will
God: atheism
Knowledge: empiricism, with doubts
Knowledge claims: invalid / depends on what you mean by “true”
Laws of nature: Humean, i.e. like Hume
Logic: strongly non-classical
Mental content: invalid / externalism
Meta-ethics: moral nihilism (in the sense that there are agent-dependent preferences and that’s it)
Metaphilosophy: naturalism, i.e. “there is no magic”
Mind: I am completely confused and have no idea, pragmatically computationalism
Moral judgment: non-cognitivism (see above)
Moral motivation: neither (see above)
Newcomb’s problem: one box, duh
Normative ethics: none (see above), pragmatically whatever feels nice (lots of consequentialism and recently deontology)
Perceptual experience: no idea (see above)
Personal identity: neither—I am my experience; I do not identify with my psychology, thoughts or biology, except in a pragmatic sense
Politics: no idea / neither, lean towards autocracy, but whatever works is fine by me
Proper names: not familiar enough, Frege seems sensible
Science: technically anti-realism, pragmatically realism
Teletransporter (new matter): probably death, but I’m currently confused
Time: strongly lean towards A-theory
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do): lean towards switch, pragmatically probably freeze Truth: neither / invalid / horribly confused
Zombies: currently very confused; I’m working on a complete mapping of the argument and intuitively currently lean towards “conceivable, but not possible in this universe”