Recent Responses
What arguments can be given against <i>ad hominem</i> arguments?
Peter Lipton
October 16, 2005
(changed October 16, 2005)
Permalink
If these are arguments which attempt to undermine an opponent's argument by pointing out flaws in her rather than flaws in her reasoning, then the argument against ad hominem arguments is that don't provide good reasons for their conclusions. Rotten people may give sound arguments.... Read more
Do you think that Socrates really believes that moral facts exist? He seems to never decide on an answer.
Jyl Gentzler
October 16, 2005
(changed October 16, 2005)
Permalink
By “Socrates,” I’ll assume that you are referring to the characterSocrates found in Plato’s early, so-called Socratic dialogues, acharacter who many (though not all) ancient scholars believe accurately represents theviews of the historical figure Socrates.
It’s easy to bepuzzled by Socr... Read more
I read in Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey" about the Turing test. Is this a good test for whether a thing is conscious?
Peter Lipton
October 16, 2005
(changed October 16, 2005)
Permalink
According to the Turing Test, if you have an extended email conversation probing to see whether your interlocutor is a person or a machine and you eventually decide it is a person, but it turns out to be a computer, then we ought to say that the computer is intelligent. Taken as a test for... Read more
Is John Searle's Chinese Room parable a fundamental proof that computers do not have consciousness?
Peter Lipton
October 16, 2005
(changed October 16, 2005)
Permalink
The nub of Searle's provocative argument is the claim that if you are given only symbols, without being told their meaning, plus rules for manipulating those symbols to generate an output of symbols, where those rules never talk about meaning, then you are never going to learn the meaning of... Read more
How does one apply Rawls's theory of justice to concrete situations? Recently I've tried to think about how the theory would apply to the use of torture in interrogations (which I hope the theory would forbid) and to the use of racial profiling on the New York City subways (which I hope it would permit). Comment on these or other examples would be appreciated. --Steven New York, NY
Thomas Pogge
October 16, 2005
(changed October 16, 2005)
Permalink
Freedom from torture would be among the basic liberties protected by Rawls's first principle of justice. This means that the government could restrict this freedom only for the sake of this or other basic liberties (Rawls's "first priority rule"). To justify such a restriction, the governme... Read more
Is John Searle's Chinese Room parable a fundamental proof that computers do not have consciousness?
Peter Lipton
October 16, 2005
(changed October 16, 2005)
Permalink
The nub of Searle's provocative argument is the claim that if you are given only symbols, without being told their meaning, plus rules for manipulating those symbols to generate an output of symbols, where those rules never talk about meaning, then you are never going to learn the meaning of... Read more
I´m a Computer Scientist with a new found interest in philosophy. In particular I'm interested in the philosophy of mind. I have two questions: 1) What is the big fuss about Frank Jackson's knowledge argument? I read the paper and found it quite silly - how could we ever imagine what it would be like to have all physical knowledge? How is it possible that this argument has generated so much debate? 2) Is it really that hard to imagine that we at some point will be able to build a computer that has a consciousness? I mean, apparently there is already such a machine - our brain! von Neumann said something cool once: "Tell me exactly what it is [consciousness] and I will build it". I believe him. In other words, how can there be so much controversy on this matter, when there is still no clear definition of what consciousness is? Thanks.
Amy Kind
October 15, 2005
(changed October 15, 2005)
Permalink
There are certainly philosophers who share your intuition about Jackson's thought experiment -- Daniel Dennett, for example, in Consciousness Explained claims that the problem with the argument is precisely the one you've pointed to: Jackson misimagines what it would be like to have all the phy... Read more
Why is it that adults preach about democracy and how great it is when really if you're under 18 your parents are like dictators?
Alexander George
October 15, 2005
(changed October 15, 2005)
Permalink
This might be taking your question too narrowly, but how about this: democracy is a form of government that places political power in the hands of citizens through their right to vote. But not all citizens are given a vote: five-year olds aren't, the mentally deranged aren't. In partic... Read more
Psychology is advancing at a rapid rate and it's providing us with answers that were previously unthought of. Who we are and why we act the way we do is all being deciphered in a scientific and irrefutable way. In light of this change in the human attempt to understand itself, why should people continue to waste their energies in the non-empirical and unscientific approach known as philosophy?
Richard Heck
October 18, 2005
(changed October 18, 2005)
Permalink
If you want to know what love is, you'll learn more at this point from Pablo Neruda and the Song of Solomon than you will from all the psychologists in the world. And I venture that there will always be something you can learn from Neruda that the psychologists will not be able to teach you.... Read more
How do you know that philosophers have the answer?
Richard Heck
October 18, 2005
(changed October 18, 2005)
Permalink
I don't think many philosophers would claim to have the answer to very many questions. A philosopher doesn't have to reflect very long on the history of the subject to convince h'erself that a healthy does of modesty would probaby be a good idea. Any philosopher who does claim to have the an... Read more