Rubbish that passes for philosophy these days

[Mish]

Still I'm interested to see people's answers to these questions:



1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

Consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.

But then why not kill Bill?

2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?

Are you really an entire human being? If surgeons swapped George Bush's brain for yours, surely the Bush look-alike, recovering from the operation in the White House, would be you. Hence it is tempting to say that you are a human brain, not a human being. But why the brain and not the spleen? Presumably because the brain supports your mental states, eg your hopes, fears, beliefs, values, and memories. But then it looks like it's actually those mental states that count, not the brain supporting them. what if surgeons imprinted your mental states on two pre-wiped brains: George Bush's and Gordon Brown's? Would you be in the White House or in Downing Street? There's nothing on which to base a sensible choice. Yet one person cannot be in two places at once. In the end, then, no attempt to make sense of your continued existence over time works.

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?

What reason do you have to believe there's a computer screen in front of you? Presumably that you see it, or seem to. But our senses occasionally mislead us. A straight stick half-submerged in water sometimes look bent; two equally long lines sometimes look different lengths. Before relying on your sense they must be independantly checked, but you cannot independently check your senses. You cannot jump outside of the experiences they provide to check they're generally reliable. So your senses give you no reason at all to believe that there is a computer screen in front of you.

4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?

No one's denying you chose to read this. But your choice had causes (certain events in your brain, for example), which in turn had causes, and so on right back to the Big Bang. So your reading this was predictable long before you existed. Once you came along, it was already far too late for you to do anything about it. Notice that, in ordinary life, it is precisely when people act unpredictably that we sometimes question whether they have acted freely and responsibly. So freewill begins to look incompatible both with causal determination and with randomness. None of us, then, ever do anything freely and responsibly.

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7739493.stm[/url]

[IndiReloaded]

Good spot Mish, now stop thinking about it.

I said it before. You young ppl, your challenge won't be to merely learn information like it was for me. It will be to become expert filters & sift the shit from the cream.

Critical thinkers only need apply.

[adam250]

I guess you have seen the matrix.

[DoesntMatter]

I guess you have seen the matrix.

I have seen roughly 4,000 matrices today as a matter of fact

[Junket]

I have seen roughly 4,000 matrices today as a matter of fact

I don't think I've spoken of anal sex as much as you have your mathematics.

[misombra]

that's an interesting article. it goes along with that free will thread.

[IndiReloaded]

DM, my husband majored in math & he never talked about it as much as you. Are you insecure about it? Don't compare yourself to those math geeks, they think about all sorts of weird things. To most ppl, a torus is a kind of car.

[misombra]

dm would be a good math tutor for some hot girl

he could be all, "one plus one is two baby now take off your pants."

[DoesntMatter]

I would talk more about anal sex if I got some regularly

I really don't think I talk much about it. Anything at all seems like a lot, much like talking about guns

[Gribble]

Some of those are old, old philosophical concepts. They're a lot more fun if you have a room full of people discussing them.

Take the train. Most people say they'd divert the train to hit the lone person, sparing the group. If you alter the scenario in such a way that people are forced to directly interact with the sacrificial lamb most folks just sputter helplessly. For example, suppose there's a bridge over this set of tracks. And suppose there's a very fat man standing on this bridge. Would you be willing to push him off to stop the train and thus spare five lives?

It is all rather ridiculous, though, ain't it?

[IndiReloaded]

much like talking about guns

Point. Talk about math all you like.

I mentioned the tutoring to him. I also think he's missing out on a big source of female adoration. College chicks dig guys who demonstrate their skills.

[DoesntMatter]

No I'm serious, that sounds exactly like my roommate. It's like a mention so many different things every day, like foods I like, the Buffalo Bills, boobs, things that come up in conversation. But I mention guns twice in a month and I now have an obsession

[DoesntMatter]

But to get away from hijacking this thread,

1) Almost always no

2) Yes

3) Yes

4) Yes

[IndiReloaded]

Some of those are old, old philosophical concepts. They're a lot more fun if you have a room full of people discussing them.

When lots of alcohol is involved. And a camcorder to record the highlights of the conversation.

[misombra]

i'll talk about it w/ someone later and i'll tell you what we came up with.