4 Philosophical Questions To Make Your Brain Hurt

Submitted by: bobclean 8 years ago in Weird
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7739493.stm

It"s World Philosophy Day: A chance to contemplate one"s very existence and whether computer monitors really exist.
There are 210 comments:
Female 45
Actually, none of these made my brain hurt. They made me think, but not THAT much.
0
Reply
Male 10
KILL BILL!!!
0
Reply
Female 7
Hmph. what :|
0
Reply
Male 287
Amazing. I Feel no need to come up with answers to these questions, i`m just wowed by the sheer magnitude. Especially the 3rd one. I just about gouged my eyes out.
0
Reply
Female 19
They must have been stoned to come up with all that :P
0
Reply
Male 274
this is really disappointing for a bbc article. total nonsense " are you the same person"! kill for organs being same as having to choose if train runs over people etc. waste of time reading.
0
Reply
Male 260
1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?
See White_Wolfos responds, so true. First one is the law of the strongest. The rest is just numbers really.

2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?
Again White_Wolfos responds but, if you think about it we could clone ourselves and say its us. That`s not true, it would be a human being made to look like us and think it was us. There fore it could still be a different person all together just, lets say, brainwashed. No one knows what the (lets call it) soul is, so until we do this can`t be argued really.

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?
Aaa White_Wolfos right again.

4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?
Fred could indeed not have predicted anyone readying this as of random events true out existence. So that rules out Fred being able to do anything like that.
As for the free will thing. You have free will, If you thing some one is controlling your free will you need a

0
Reply
Male 516
1 - True
2 - True
3 - False
4 - Green


Sweet!! I aced that one.

0
Reply
Male 59
1. You save 5 people who would have otherwise died, than you are going against natural selection, thus making the human race as a whole completely useless, spineless, and weak.

2.Same person, different titles, and different knowledge.

3.While your senses can fail you and the fact that you might be hallucinating all of this is a possibility, it doesn`t change the fact that, even if you are hallucinating, your still sensing something, even if it is incorrect.

4.Fate doesn`t exist, only a time line that has no point A or B and goes on forever. The illusion of control.

To Dormetheus, the species as a whole is more important than one individual.

0
Reply
Male 30
Here`s another utilitarian argument:

Say there is a place of perfect utopia. No wars, no hunger, etc. Thousands of people live in harmony and happiness.

Now, in order for this utopia to run, one person is shut off in a dungeon to be tortured endlessly.

If that person is freed, the utopia is destroyed. Do you free them?

0
Reply
Female 1,142
1 - Let the five people die. Everybody dies, they don`t deserve to live any more than Bill, and no one should have to be killed by the hands of another to prevent nature from taking its course.
And as for the hostage situation - shoot the farking kidnapper! o_o

2 - Wait - so you`re saying that if I suddenly woke up as an old dude in the White House I`d be the same person as I am now? Uhm... no? Part of what makes a person a person are their memories. You think George Bush`s body is going to have the same reaction to remembering being a little girl as mine? WTF?

3 - By technical definition, yes, it a is a computer screen. Even if we cannot sense its entire existence, the name for the thing is "computer screen".

4 - I am unpredictable. Screw Fred. He don`t know me.

0
Reply
Male 3,431
When ever I am faced with such philosophical quandaries, I often pretend to think about them for a moment then throat punch the person that brought it up. They`ll have time to come up with an answer in the Hospital.
0
Reply
Female 282
ppft, thinking. not doing that today.
0
Reply
Male 124
no, yes, yes, yes.
0
Reply
Male 1,089
agreed tyremote, sadly ur too late i was talking to someone yesterday night.
0
Reply
Male 292
Wow, you`re right! Trite, vacuous, "philosophical" questions DO make my brain hurt! Another home run, I-A-B!
0
Reply
Female 486
It is different from killing the healthy person. Because the other five could get their organs from already deceased people or donators.
0
Reply
Male 142
I remeber there was some guy who really took 5 teen girls, tied them up and gave them a gun. He said he will only let them go if they kill someone of thier own. So one of the girls got sick. She was killed, they were freed, the dudes in prison (i think). The point is, just knock out the weakest link. Simple as that. I love philosophy but hate simple to answer questions. :P
0
Reply
Female 751
This is the stuff we discussed in my psychology class... my theory: It`s the result of overthinking.
0
Reply
Male 31
I love this kind of stuff.
The organ one is basically a twist on the trolley problem: A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

So most people would flip the switch...is that different from killing the healthy person?

0
Reply
Male 122
If there`s one thing I learned from this post, it`s that too much school makes people dumb.
0
Reply
Female 85
There is a flaw in the first one. It`s unethical to kill the healthy person to save the 5 people that need organs because that one healthy person`s life is not in danger.

The example with the hostages or the train cab: all six peoples` lives are in jeopardy. So inevitably, at least one person will die. Killing a healthy person isn`t right because their life is not in jeopardy.

It would make more sense to kill one of the people that need organs, take their good organs, and give them to the people that need them. That would be a more compelling argument.

0
Reply
Female 710
1 - Kill one person to save more lives. That`s what I`d do.
2 - I don`t get that one
3 - Yes
4 - Yes
0
Reply
Male 284
I think about these issues all the time, without some hack philospher telling me that I thought them. I agree with Quebec1217, there is nothing of any substance or profound nature in any of those statements.
0
Reply
Male 35
42
0
Reply
Female 2,027
ugh my brain hurts
0
Reply
Male 2,388
On the question of choice versus destiny someone once said that you make your own word. I once said that it isnt about the choices you make its how you see them afterward that make you happy or sad. For example if someone was falling off a cliff and you saved them at great personal injury in the hospital bed you may either think it was a good thing to do or not. And if you didnt save them you may be thinking the same thing.
0
Reply
Male 147
Codmily, don`t be overly sensitive, I wasn`t judging you, I don`t even know you. As an artist I`m personally used to criticism and greatly appreciate it when someone offers to give their opinion on my work. My criticism of your comment was no different, I felt no malice, I didn`t make any assumptions on your intelligence or judgment, and I didn`t intend to provoke an emotional response from you. I just wanted to show you that the philosophical though experiments are intriguing when you analyze them, and I thought your conclusions seemed like the quick responses of someone who already had answers for the questions.
0
Reply
Male 109
Dumb... Nothing profound there in the least.
0
Reply
Male 650
Chisholm would disagree with you. This is Philosophy 101, lame.
0
Reply
Female 360
Animecha
Male, 18-29, Western US

I just want you to know that I really appreciate you telling me that my answers were not good enough. The fact of the matter is that just because I post up simple answers does not mean that they don`t go deeper. In fact, I did write up a little something on my thoughts of each, but I didn`t post it as it was too large to fit and I figured that most people wouldn`t really give a rat`s ass. Apparently I was wrong. HOWEVER I find it very touching that you, the judger and creator of the universe can tell me, since you know me so well, that my response to an article found on the idiot website of the universe was not intellectual enough for you. Dear God, help me to have a better answer next time so that Animecha, and anyone else reading I Am Bored Forums, will not piss his pants.

0
Reply
Male 2,125
Meh, I`ll take a crack at it.
1. Why kill Bill? Why not let yourself die? Do you think Bill want`s to be killed? If you can kill Bill, why can`t you let the 5 people that`s already suffering just die?
2. Of course I`m the same person. I have my own thoughts and emotions that make me, me.
3. I trust my senses to know what is and what isn`t in front of me. If it`s not a computer screen, then who am I to argue? To me, it is and that`s the only answer I need.
4. I believe in destiny through choice. I always have to options every moment. Depending on my choices, I will end up in a happy place or a not so happy place.
Well, that`s my answers to these and they are my opinion. Good Night ^_^
0
Reply
Male 341
The person who wrote that article needs a cigarette and some alcohol.
0
Reply
Male 116
Ugh....
0
Reply
Male 174
Also, a cursory glance didn`t reveal this name through the latest comments. If you are actually interested in having your views on physical existence questioned intelligently, search Bertrand Russell. Take some aspirin before you start and prepare to be dazzled by lunacy. Either yours or his.
0
Reply
Male 174
I`m disappointed only in his defense of the "unanswerable nature" of the questions. Very good points that I`m sure (hoping) he is able to defend on either side, but did a sophomoric job in this article of presenting to what appeared to be an assumed uneducated audience.

@d_katman: nice reference, especially given your age(?). "We only know what we `see.`"

0
Reply
Male 1,406
All of them are pretty deep, but the last one annoys me because there`s nothing to even really argue about. You just have to accept you can never truly know what is real and what isn`t. However the best bet is to assume that our senses are detecting the real thing. More information on things that are out of our senses like dark matter might actually change this one.
0
Reply
Male 1,835
tvremonte, here is one thing that i can count on..
no matter what i-a-b is discussing. at least one person will say "man i`m really disappointed in you guys!" and that is something that never fails
The internet is the place where you can assume everyone is stupid.
Because odds are most of them are (US education system depending on your area is pretty much sheit)

So mentioning names like Immanuel Kant, you`d be lucky to get a response. I am not calling i-a-b unintelligent. but i certainly am stating that the internet is all knowing, it`s users are not.

My philosophy about sie internet:(this hopefully won`t blow your mind)
Internet is everyone and no one. The 2.0 organism. I would say that the internet is qutie possibly the prime example of plato`s ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE. THis is a short one but read it a few times. You will never loo

0
Reply
Male 147
Its much more interesting when you put a good amount of thought into it. It`s easy to simply disregard something and give it an arbitrary answer. Don`t think I`m picking on you Codmily, I just want to show you what I mean.

"1. Don`t kill him, it`s not the way nature intended it." By what virtue can nature have intent or even have thought?

"2. Of course I`m the same person you idiot!" If a person can be completely different from who they were a year ago, why not minutes?

"3. ...God has given me free will which means that yea, I did choose to read that article." What is free will? If all things are caused is it simply part of a greater mechanism out of our control, or if isnt caused would that make it random and therefore also out of our control? Then what makes it out "will" and how is it "free" if we cannot control it?

"4. Duh it`s a computer screen. NO! it`s not a stick under the water." How can anything be known if w

0
Reply
Male 447
Wow IAB, you disappoint me. I read the article and jumped to the discussion hoping to read some interesting philosophical conversation. Sadly, none of you have any knowledge of basic philosophy so you just say blah blah it was stupid blah blah blah. Read some Singer or Kant or Moore. Saying that something is stupid when you don`t understand it is ignorant. Open your minds or shut your mouth.
0
Reply
Female 471
b-b-beccah - it definitely does lol
0
Reply
Female 360
"Huh...I didn`t find them that deep.
But I bet if I was high that would have blown my mind"

This comment made me giggle.

1. Don`t kill him, it`s not the way nature intended it.
2. Of course I`m the same person you idiot!
3. Fred is not God, God is God. There was no big bang and God has given me free will which means that yea, I did choose to read that article.
4. Duh it`s a computer screen. NO! it`s not a stick under the water.

That guy sounds like a douche.

0
Reply
Male 147
1. NO
2. YES
3. YES
4. YES and NO
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Is x/0 = infinity? No its not.
0
Reply
Female 2,258
Oh god... trying to read that maths conversation has made my head hurt.
0
Reply
Female 668
Huh...I didn`t find them that deep.
But I bet if I was high that would have blown my mind
0
Reply
Male 1,468
You guys should check out my avatar.


NOW, DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO CLICK THE PICTURE, MAKING A BIGGER, POPPY-UPPYER ONE?!

0
Reply
Male 2,855
whoever wrote that is an idiot, philosophize that
0
Reply
Male 265
argenteus pwns other math arguments until further notice. not that my opinion holds any weight, I`m a poli sci major. ha!

Why thank you :)

0
Reply
Male 340
You can also prove that .99999 (and to infinity) is = 1. Also that 1 = -1. There`s a lot of weird stuff out there.
0
Reply
Male 2,076
argenteus pwns other math arguments until further notice. not that my opinion holds any weight, I`m a poli sci major. ha!
0
Reply
Male 1,766
I love philosophy.
But i think the Organ one would be fine as long as the person agreed
0
Reply
Male 4,290
I was going to weigh in again, but argenteus clearly knows his stuff and can explain it more eloquently than me, so goodnight :D
0
Reply
Male 1,406
hey guys, we talking about math? 0^0 can be 0, 1, indeterminate, or undefined, depending how you look on it. The answer to the question depends on what you`re looking to find out by answering it.
0
Reply
Male 226
0^0 = 1 , or a little bicycle, depending on how you look at it.
0
Reply
Male 265
lol i hate exponential functions, so im not going to think about 0^0

This, too, is an indeterminate form. Its logarithm is 0 * infinity.

0
Reply
Male 764
ok im too tired, im going to bed

bye

0
Reply
Male 764
tell that to the minority of mathematicians arguing it. my teachers researched this, some people really are arguing it
0
Reply
Male 1,765
Yeah, I figured out X/0 = Infinity is oversimplifying things. However, since I do not plan on majoring in math, it`ll work for me.
0
Reply
Male 764
lol i hate exponential functions, so im not going to think about 0^0
0
Reply
Male 226
Math is i m a g i n a r y!!
0
Reply
Male 265
And no, professional mathematicians are not arguing it. Our entire sense of modern mathematics relies on that axiom, and you`d be near-retarded to try to refute it.

No offense.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
"how dare you associate pies with the evil of asymptotes!"

Your the pie master.. and I am the one doing all this freaky slicing?

0
Reply
Male 764
regardless, they really are arguing over it

even though you beat me in a debate, it wont stop them

0
Reply
Male 265
Furthermore, if you wish to
define the four operations + - * and / for this new system, you
probably want them to be the same on real numbers, and just add on
the definitions of things like infinity + r and r/infinity, for any
real number r. Some of these work fine. It makes sense to define:

infinity + r = r + infinity = infinity

blah blah blah, but what you CAN`T do is:

(-infinity) / 0 = -infinity

These expressions are called "indeterminate forms." These can all
have a large range of different values, depending on exactly where
the "infinity" parts came from.

As a result, the system you construct is not closed under addition,
subtraction, multiplication, or division.

Other indeterminate forms are 0^0, 1^infinity. You will encounter
them again when you take calculus.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
They don`t call him Steady-Hands Elkingo for nothing.
0
Reply
Male 265
Look:

1/0 is said to be undefined because division is defined in terms of
multiplication. a/b = x is defined to mean that b*x = a. There is
no x such that 0*x = 1, since 0*x = 0 for all x. Thus 1/0 does not
exist, or is not defined, or is undefined.

You wish to introduce a new element (or maybe two elements) infinity
which you wish to append to the real number system. That is not
prohibited. After all, that is how we got from natural numbers to
integers (appending negative integers and zero), and from integers
to rationals (appending ratios of integers), and from rationals to
reals (appending limits of convergent sequences), and from reals to
complexes (appending the square root of -1). What you end up with
is not the real number system, however.

0
Reply
Male 764
lol i have 2 math teachers that researched the debate...

and one of them is just awesome, even though hes merely shy and smart, but pro mathematicians are really arguing over it, regardless of what either of us say

0
Reply
Male 226
How dare you associate pies with the evil of asymptotes!
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Do you have any idea how hard it was to cut a pie accurately to .61125???
0
Reply
Male 265
if it means anything to you, professional mathematicians are arguing my point, albeit a lot better than me.

No, I bet you (or your teacher, whichever one reads your textbook) are just misinterpreting the words of those mathematicians.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
How come I only get 1.61125 pies? :`(
0
Reply
Male 764
if it means anything to you, professional mathematicians are arguing my point, albeit a lot better than me
0
Reply
Male 764
while on the topic of profound poo

i have my own theory for our universe and timeline, anyone wanna hear it?

0
Reply
Male 265
yes, the limit is infinity, but if infinity is its limit, something has to equal infinity, otherwise the domain (range? im tired) wouldnt include infinity before reaching its limit

no i havent taken calculus, and it is possible

Yes, I can tell you haven`t taken calculus. And you`re wrong - something DOESN`T have to equal infinity for infinity to be it`s limit. 0 is not in the domain of the function, and in the same way "infinity" is not in the range - you can`t ever bound infinity so it can`t ever be included in the range of a function.

If it means anything to you, I`m a math major at Duke University.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
lol
0
Reply
Male 764
well elkingo, the near-infinite amount of chuck norris jokes

GOT OLD

0
Reply
Male 5,620
Chuck Norris counted to infinity.. twice.
0
Reply
Male 1,765
If I have 4 apples, how many times can I eat 0 apples? Infinite times.

http://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/0by0.h...

0
Reply
Male 764
yes, the limit is infinity, but if infinity is its limit, something has to equal infinity, otherwise the domain (range? im tired) wouldnt include infinity before reaching its limit

no i havent taken calculus, and it is possible

0
Reply
Male 5,620
1/2 also creates an infinity. Say I have 100 pies. I give 1/2 of them to sixclaws. I then give 1/2 of the remaining to davy, which is 25. The I give 1/2 of those to fancy, he gets 12.5 pies. I give 1/2 of the remaining again to Lauraly, that leaves me with 6.25 pies. I then give 1/2 again to Opie, I have 3.125 pies. I give 1/2 of that to bob, I have 1.61125 pies.. You can always give 1/2 away. It might get really really small, but you can give away an infinite amount of 1/2s..
0
Reply
Male 213
Did someone below give Zeno`s argument against motion? Because you can use calculus to refute it. But, on the other hand, if you read the interpretation without math, that there is a set with infinite elements, and to walk from one side of a room to another, you must traverse the entire set, then there is a problem unless you allow that there is a smallest division of space.
0
Reply
Male 265
No, x/0 is not infinity, but rather, the limit as x approaches 0 of 1/x is infinity. X/0 is just something they tell you before you take a calculus class.
0
Reply
Male 764
almighty bob, take a graph, 1/X and get smaller and smaller, the number will get bigger and bigger, and since you cant logically reach 0 by getting smaller, 0=infinity, thats the gist of the argument, same goes for the inverse
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Yes but to explain X/0.. you can place 0 in any number an infinite amount of times.

Example: How many times can I take 0 bites out of an apple? Answer: infinity

0
Reply
Male 5,620
As for reading the article.. maybe It is someone`s mental social construct also? The answer for me is one that many will not like. I have faith that I was created, and faith allows me to ethically choose to believe these truths. Now, before I get flamed religiously, I am a Christian, but I am referring to the faith that my sensory output is correct.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Am I the same person? No, because I am constantly changing. Would I kill Bill? No, but I would not sacrifice someone to save 5 others in a hostage situation either. I would also hit the 4 people on the track, because it would be obvious that the person all alone was someone important.. someone who may know how to end world hunger, or something really great, and the people who orchestrated this train scenario knew this and wanted him to die... maybe they knew that also, and tied him up with 3 other people.. hmm perplexing.

Ever saw the matrix? Maybe it isn`t a computer screen, only my brain is so complex as to construct the many elements that would constitute a screen: the company that sold it, and competitors, the web sites, the pages, the people who comment, the questions, the flames.. everything. How do you know we are not in a comma and our brains construct a reality that is totally false. Perhaps I am a dream that you created?

0
Reply
Male 4,290
Sharpest, your school is teaching you bad maths. Don`t listen!

Dividing by zero makes no sense, which is why it is undefined. I`ll use an analogy:

Normal Division: "If I have 4 apples, how many times can I eat 2 apples?" Answer = 4/2 = 2 times.

Dividing by zero: "If I have 4 apples, how many times can I eat a banana?" Answer - WTF?

0
Reply
Male 142
Weird, we`re taught over here that X/0 = Undefined? My math teacher is really well respected as far as I knew.. Hmm.
0
Reply
Male 265
sixclaws13: It`s called the Intermediate Value Theorem.

Take a basic math class.

0
Reply
Male 764
i need no pity sharpest, but thanks for agreeing

elkingo, the world only needs one, if there were more....HOLY ****

0
Reply
Male 1,765
Silverlake, if it makes you feel any better: at my school I`m taught that X/0 = Infinity. My books say that as well. Also, -X/0 = Negative Infinity.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
If you could imprint your brain onto other brains.. do you realize how many elkingos there would be? =D
0
Reply
Male 764
canine, stop hurting my brain, paradoxes are such mindf*cks

i just shat bricks

0
Reply
Male 142
What I meant by "kill yourself", was kill your past self.

My bad

0
Reply
Male 764
cant take seriously*

oops triple post >_<

0
Reply
Male 764
besides, i cant take someone with only numbers for a name, plus your lying about your age and location, a 70 year old in south america would not call someone a fag
0
Reply
Male 764
""x/0=infinity, thats the definition
it seemed kinda obvious :/"
ur a fag b/c x/0 is undefined"

read for comprehension, i said mathematicians are comtemplating it, and by mathematicians, i mean professional ones, theres a giant debate over it currently

0
Reply
Male 4,290
" but it is possible to go from one speed to another over a period of time without going every speed in between."

Sorry sixclaws, but it isn`t. An object with mass cannot change from one speed to another without going through every speed in between, even if it`s only for a fraction of a second. The appropriate equation of motion is v = u + at. If the time is zero, the speed is still the same (v = u).


And airsofter, I`m 20. I`m not sure why that makes a difference, or why I should `get out of Europe while I still can`. Unless you mean the increasing trend of atheism or something else religious, which we`re not going to get into because this thread is about philosophy. If you`d like to debate religion, I will happily do so in the next religion thread. If that wasn`t what you meant, please explain why I should leave Europe (Scotland to be precise).

0
Reply
Female 178
"x/0=infinity, thats the definition
it seemed kinda obvious :/"

ur a fag b/c x/0 is undefined

0
Reply
Male 26
Even a bullet accelerates. It`s physically impossible for it to start at ie. 500 fps, as it would have to have been traveling at that speed befor it was fired. Even if only a fraction of a second, it`s still an acceleration.
0
Reply
Male 619
What if C-A-T really spelled dog?
0
Reply
Male 868
These are all just "what ifs" so I refuse to accept it`s reality and substitute my own.
0
Reply
Male 1,765
"The post I responded to seems to have vanished. Did it go back in time and kill itself"

I did it xD. I was editing it, but it wouldn`t let me post the new version of the post. I dunno why.

0
Reply
Male 764
btw, nothing to do with philosophy, but mathematicians have caught on to something

x/0=infinity, thats the definition
it seemed kinda obvious :/

0
Reply
Male 1,765
"No you don`t. It is possible to start at zero and instantly accelerate to twenty. When a bullet leaves a gun it doesn`t start out going 1 mph for a 100th of a second, then go 2, then 3, etc."

I don`t think so, given acceleration (in MKS) is expressed as meter/square second, which is the same as (meter/second)/second. Which means an object takes an amount of time to alter it`s speed. A distance-time graph for a bullet looks like a pretty steep curve, for which the speed would be the gradient of the curve at a given point. Thus, a bullet, when altering it`s speed, goes at "1 mph for a 100th of a second, then go 2, then 3, etc."

0
Reply
Female 339
Oh, what the hell.
This is definantely NOT for me.
0
Reply
Male 2,313
I know nothing moves instantly, but it is possible to go from one speed to another over a period of time without going every speed in between.
0
Reply
Male 1,089
@sixclaws. ya it does, nothing moves instantaneously. even light isn`t instant. its as fast as it can be but is not instant.
0
Reply
Male 1,266
1. Donating organs is good and before you take them from the single guy take them from murders and rapists.
2. I am the same person at a different time in my time line. If my brain was implanted, they`d be the person they were before with my memories and thought patterns.
3. Yes, too much sesory information for it to be made up and if it is then what i percieve to be a computer screen is what i have always been looking at and thus whatever it actually is, is what I class as a computer screen and thus is...
4. Yes and no, there are an infinite number of possibilites occuring every second all of those could have conspired against me to make me not want to read this article and that to be a possible solution to `Fred`s` problem, but instead this solution occured.
0
Reply
Male 2,313
The post I responded to seems to have vanished. Did it go back in time and kill itself?
0
Reply
Male 2,313
"But you`re making the same mistake tornado-guy did: you`re dividing the finite unit into infinite parts. You can`t "loop" from 0 to 20, skipping some numbers. And yes, you have to go at exactly five, half o five, etc. at some point."

No you don`t. It is possible to start at zero and instantly accelerate to twenty. When a bullet leaves a gun it doesn`t start out going 1 mph for a 100th of a second, then go 2, then 3, etc.

0
Reply
Male 1,266
"But then why not kill Bill?"

That line cracked me up.. kill bill... ahhh that was a good movie...

0
Reply
Male 2,313
f I were blind.
0
Reply
Male 2,313
"davymid


If you had a friend who was blind from birth, and you had to describe the world to him/her, how would you describe COLOUR? I mean, you can describe shape, texture, size, smell, taste, sound, all those things that your blind friend can relate to with their remaining senses.

But how would you describe to your blind friend how a RED glass cube differs from a GREEN glass cube? You can`t just say it`s "different", can you?

How would you relate the concept of "Colour" to someone who`s been blind since birth? Think about it, I`ve never been able to come up with a good answer, kudos to anyone who does..."

The best I can think of would be to put their hand in a bowl of hot water, tell them to think of the feeling as red. Cold water would be blue. Take them outside and if there`s a warm breeze, tell them to think of it as yellow or orange. A cold breeze would be blue/gray. I don`t know if it`d work but it`s the way I`d want it explained to me i

0
Reply
Male 1,765
Canine, depends on how your "time travel" works. If by "time travel" you mean you go back in time, see your alternate past self and then commit suicide, you killed an alternate possibility of what could`ve been you. Thus, you live your life normally without realizing in the future an alternate possibility of yourself you went back in time and killed himself.
However, if by time travel you mean you go back in time but you do not "see" your past self, you actually ARE your past self again, and commit suicide, you would simply live a normal life, commit suicide, and die. You wouldn`t be trapped in some sort of "time loop", you die and that`s it.
I wish i could illustrate it better with some pics, but I`m too damn lazy.
0
Reply
Male 2,313
"tornadofdoom

One more for ya guys:

How can somebody walk across a room to touch a wall? It is impossible. Why? Here:

In order to do it, you`d have to traverse 1/2 the distance, then 1/2 the remaining distance, then 1/2 the remaining distance etc. That means there is an infinite amount of distance, so it is impossible to reach the wall, yet you can do that? Why?"

There is a finite, not infinite amount of distance, but you can divide the distance into an infinite amount of parts. Just like you can divide a second into half a second, half of a half, half of a half of a half, etc. I used this argument to prove my friend wrong the other day. He said when you accelerate a car from 0 to 20, at some point you have to be going exactly 10. But you don`t, because if that was true at some point you`d have to go exactly 5, exactly half of five, half of half of five, etc.

0
Reply
Male 1,365
No we don`t killl for any reason, no, my body is changing on a microscopic level. Yes, it is a computer as long as my mind deducts it from subjective reasoning. Yes, I chose to read this article because IAB posted it..and they never post boring mundane lengthy articles from the BBC.
0
Reply
Male 142
These were all f*cking stupid.

A better one is:

If you went back in time and killed yourself, you would never have been alive to go back in time and kill yourself.

AND DON`T GIVE ME THE PARALLEL UNIVERSE BS.

0
Reply
Male 764
well evolution has enough evidence that you cant disprove it, but not enough that you can prove it either, so it`s only option is really to either be proven, or give way to a better theory
0
Reply
Male 430
The answer to them all is maybe.
0
Reply
Male 129
If my brain hurts at all, it`s only because those were the worst examples of philosophical questions I have ever read. Just dumb. Question 1 was apples and oranges-2 was an exercise in futility because it is dealing with impossible situations; 3 was a weak example of the standard Christian Science argument that nothing really exists, or can`t be proven so; stick a knife in your hand, that`ll answer that one.
And 5, well, it`s dumb right off the bat, because any omnipotent being with unlimited knowledge and wisdom would NEVER call himself "Fred!" Oh, and the Big Bang and evolution are dumb, unprovable and consists mostly of conjecture, guessing, and circular reasoning to prove itself.
0
Reply
Male 1,089
am i a douchebag? new IAB poll. if i am an intelectual that is...
is saying this post is dumb make you dumb? idk but i think so. phylosophy is one of the hardest things to grasp that man has created. does that make it dumb?
0
Reply
Male 1,089
@almightybob i hate to pull this card but i`m only 14. how old ru? really am i talking to someone who is 24 or 10? if u do have a choice... or can get out of europe while u still can its already lost. no i am not explaining. and yes veryone now thinks i`m crazy but in 20 or so years u will see what i mean.
0
Reply
Male 330
interesting...
0
Reply
Male 764
lol bob, forums boil down to 4 groups

the top, and smallest group is intuectuals, but half of them are douches about it

0
Reply
Male 4,290
Anyway much as I love debates like this, I have uni in the morning.


It`s nice to see something vaguely intellectual on here. Gives me a little hope. Good for you IAB.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
"according to evolution i think everything must benefit us in some way... right? or is evolution just there to make us better at the stuff we do while making life fun?"


Basically evolution boils down to two things - genetic inheritance and mutation. Not all mutations are beneficial, so if you suffer a bad mutation you`re less likely to last long enough to reproduce and pass on any genes to your young. Helpful mutations will make you live longer, giving you more opportunity to pass on your traits. Also things like height, strength, speed etc aren`t mutations but are still beneficial traits passed on through the same processes.


Not sure about the craving, perhaps our modern diet has replaced too many of the natural cravings with processed or unhealthy foods. For example, a sugar craving can be fulfilled with fruits, but most people would go for chocolate.

0
Reply
Male 561
1. No, we should donate ours. By simply checking the box when getting your drivers license, you can save the lives of many.
2. Yup.
3. No, it`s really me in front of the computer.
4. Yup.
0
Reply
Male 274
The kill 1 to save 5 theory is we todd did. I let the sick ones die- gives the healthy one more resources to live healthier. Darwinism. And their example circumstances with the train and shoot one to save 5 IS NOT the same thing as kill 1 healthy to save 5 sick.
0
Reply
Male 1,540
Nothing most of us haven`t already thought about.
0
Reply
Male 764
we do, but we only get unresistable cravings when we are seriously deficient in said nutrient, most people have slightly low all the way up to way to much of the nutrients they need
0
Reply
Male 1,089
i guess. but still y don`t we automatically crave wut our body needs to perform at an optimum level?
0
Reply
Female 1,436
Ok, yes you should kill 1 to save 5. However, I would not kill a perfectly healthy man to save 5. That is a ridiculous notion.

Also - I think the rest of the questions/statements were just redundant.

So glad that I major in Psych not Philos.

0
Reply
Male 764
airsofter, its because white and black are inverse shades, they are the same color, just different shades of that color

unfortuneately, its impossible to figure out the starting color, im vouching black

0
Reply
Male 1,089
according to evolution i think everything must benefit us in some way... right? or is evolution just there to make us better at the stuff we do while making life fun?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Taste is a warning sense. Things that taste bad are generally bad for you, EG poisonous berries. Likewise smell is also a warning sense, if something smells really bad, EG rotting meat, leave it alone.

TBH all senses are warning senses, they evolved because they are helpful to survival (if you spit out poisonous berries before you swallow them, you`ll live longer).

0
Reply
Male 1,089
also black and white are shades not colors... i think. thats what my art teacher in grade shool taught us.

ANYONE WHO SAIS THIS IS DUMB IS DUMB. (not my comments, the questions)

0
Reply
Male 394
I have the best one. How many politicians does it take to screw in a light bulb? (none, they will find a finite resource to control those who will later do it for them and they will still profit from it)

Or better yet, what is the most efficient way our government can exploit us and the entire world at the same time!?!?!? (Oil)

0
Reply
Male 4,290
Not really sure why you think everything needs a purpose airsofter. Colour is very useful to some animals (EG chameleon), but it`s just part of the electromagnetic spectrum. If human eyeballs were tuned to the infrared we would all be able to `see` heat, and we`d all think it was totally normal.
0
Reply
Male 1,089
@almightybob. ya but the arrow`s a hell of alot faster. unless we r talking about a world without friction or gravity and the arrow and the tortoise travel the same speed then i agree with u the arrow will never hit the tortoise.

also now that i`m on it. we have no reason for senses other than making communication easier. y do i need to feel this. cells don`t feel things yet they live happily. wait they don`t think at all they just take in food to make energy. i guess what im getting at is y did we evolve senses. sure i enjoy tasting things but y does it matter if i can, i still get the energy from the food. also y doesn`t our body crave wut it needs if we can taste. y didn`t that evolve?! my body needs calcium, i am in the mood for bones. know what i mean?!

0
Reply
Male 764
davymid, thats an easy one, you say "the thing you see right now, that color is black, that is all you will ever know of color, but if you ever gain sight, i will teach you the rest of the colors"
0
Reply
Male 394
In case of the hostage situation I`d go ninja and pop a cap in the criminals ass, everyone lives, except the guy who thinks he can control anyones fate other then his own.
0
Reply
Male 394
"oh wait i got one, ok if a tree falls in the middle of nowhere and thees no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Im not an expert in physics at all, but my understanding of this question is not the physical question it`s self, but the fact that numerous experiments have proven that the result of an experiment changes based on if it is being observed or not.

0
Reply
Male 1,089
@lazyme484 u obviously have an I.Q. of about 65. congrats. btw thats y i think theres a god davymid, color has no perpose and no way to be explained other than it being there and not really doing anything of importance. i know bees see where they have taken nectar and where they haven`t but humans (as far as i can think of) have no reason for color other than making communications easier.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Davymid, my approach to the explaining-colour problem would be to use an analogy like textures. Like how two cubes can have the same size shape etc but different feels. Best solution I can think of, not perfect but there we go.
0
Reply
Male 394
and YOUREWINNER i have but one question, Do you, want to be one with me?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Tornadoofdoom, that wall one is very similar to the tortoise and arrow thought experiment, one of my favourites. It goes like this:

Imagine a tortoise moving away from you. You shoot an arrow at it. By the time that arrow reaches where the tortoise was, the tortoise has moved forward a little bit. So the arrow has to travel this extra distance. But in THAT time, the tortoise has moved forward a little bit more. So the arrow has to fly a little further for a little longer, and so on. The arrow can never hit the tortoise!

Don`t try it in practice though, or PETA will flour-bomb you.

0
Reply
Male 394
What makes a person their self, continuously from now to forever is their spirit.
0
Reply
Male 527
I was thinking the same thing airsofter1 the other day.
0
Reply
Male 151
I`m surprised they didn`t put up the Logical Problem of Evil.
0
Reply
Male 527
My answers
1. With bill, Ask him if he has no family members and no love ones and maybe if he was a religonist fellow he might allow you to take his organs to save the other people.

Kidnapper: If he just gave you a gun shoot him. Setting the others free so you just killed a life for 6 instead of 5. Or maybe only scare him with the gun and not even harm him.

runaway tram use the emergency break.

My idea avoid "playing god" you have no right to choose the fate of one man or many without his/her say. (For it asked what I would do, I am no elected leader. I have no power over my fellow men) 2. He is right people change they are not held to a pattern or forced to be one way. A old friend of yours can when you meet him again your worse enemy because the current you is based on past exps. As for the two of you in the same place. It would be two different you`s for you would be in two different bodys and may have had the same past but they do not have the same present or th

0
Reply
Male 12,138
Seeing as we`re on the topic of philosophy, and more specifically perception (nice point airsofter), here`s a headmelter...

If you had a friend who was blind from birth, and you had to describe the world to him/her, how would you describe COLOUR? I mean, you can describe shape, texture, size, smell, taste, sound, all those things that your blind friend can relate to with their remaining senses.

But how would you describe to your blind friend how a RED glass cube differs from a GREEN glass cube? You can`t just say it`s "different", can you?

How would you relate the concept of "Colour" to someone who`s been blind since birth? Think about it, I`ve never been able to come up with a good answer, kudos to anyone who does...

0
Reply
Male 1,089
btw take all 6 people put them on a team and develop artificail organs. the rest kill the one guy.
0
Reply
Male 764
oh wait i got one, ok if a tree falls in the middle of nowhere and thees no one around to "hear it, does it make a sound?
Yes it does make sound, but sound only exists when it is heard, if nothing is heard there is no sound.....hmmmmm"

yes, sound waves are created, but they decay before they reach anyone`s ears, so no one hears it, but it does make a sound

0
Reply
Male 1,089
I always thought wut if everyone had a different interpritation of everything. we agree the backgrounds black right? only u se it as orange, but the word for orange is black.. right. i see black, u see orange we both call it black. in school u and me see the same color and here the teacher say different things. and when we get together we both agree on a color that is completely different. am i goning too far IAB, did that make sense. even these words... i mean us see them and i see them and we converse but hear different thing from eachother. i say cat you hear dog then u say ya thats a dog and i hear thats a cat and agree with u... know what i mean?!
0
Reply
Male 1,078
One more for ya guys:

How can somebody walk across a room to touch a wall? It is impossible. Why? Here:

In order to do it, you`d have to traverse 1/2 the distance, then 1/2 the remaining distance, then 1/2 the remaining distance etc. That means there is an infinite amount of distance, so it is impossible to reach the wall, yet you can do that? Why?

Extra challenge:

No infinite series` allowed.

0
Reply
Male 904
the author must have been high...
0
Reply
Male 1,078
And btw, for #1 that would only be applicable if their was a shortage of organs.
0
Reply
Male 460
oh wait i got one, ok if a tree falls in the middle of nowhere and thees no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Yes it does make sound, but sound only exists when it is heard, if nothing is heard there is no sound.....hmmmmm

0
Reply
Male 1,078
1) Yes, depending on the age of the person. (older = more expendable, liable to die in a few years; younger, we leave them a chance to reclaim their lives)

2)Of course I`m not. Every action has an opposite and equal reaction.

3)No way to tell; I think, therefore I am. (existentialism question)

4)Yes. Even if it was predetermined for me, my brain had been made in order to make that choice, thus making me choose to read it no matter what.


So, who disagrees with me? (ok, everybody`s going to disagree with me on #1...Btw, I support killing innocent ppl for organs, too much variability and bias there...e.g holocaust type situation)

If you guys haven`t figured it out yet, I`m a pretty big utilitarian, as long as that is paired with at least some type of ideology.

0
Reply
Female 2,258
"But the view faces a problem: 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."
_____________________________________________________

You can`t imprint your mental state on a "wiped" brain either, so as long as we`re talking hypotheticals here... if imprinting were possible then, yes, a single person could be in multiple places at once, but only for a few moments. Once new life experiences start coming into play you change, you adapt. However, it takes time, so while I am not the same person I was 8 years ago, I am the same person who started reading this article.

0
Reply
Male 460
wow that was pretty dumb, half of those didnt make anysense.
0
Reply
Female 4,225
...like, what is the sound of one hand clapping?

Ok, not to difficult there.

Should we turn this into a philosephy thread?

0
Reply
Male 563
This is the worst they can come up with?... Not to sound pretentious, but there`s much more difficult philosophical questions out there...
0
Reply
Male 354
Man this crap is stupid.
0
Reply
Female 4,225
This was interesting...my head hurtz now
0
Reply
Male 764
my mom dragged me into the bathroom and washed my hair (idk, she said it felt like something was in it) so my brain really does hurt =[
0
Reply
Female 357
lazyme484, you`re a close-minded idiot

i studied philosophy a level

it gets worse than this

=]

xlucyx

0
Reply
Female 15,763
I`ve done versions of these WAY too many times in school.
0
Reply
Female 104
Just a bunch of lame suppositions. =p I`m in agreement with caboose117, also.
0
Reply
Male 1,011
Yes on all four

we should harvest criminals organs.

0
Reply
Male 10,440
these are just silly. childish even.
0
Reply
Male 468
My Brain hurts from this, or does it :-/
0
Reply
Male 3,819
I love it!!!
0
Reply
Male 772
Just 4? We read a book for fun in high school of 500 philosophical questions, "Would you give up your legs to let a paralyzed person walk?", "If you could kill anyone and no one would know it was you, would you do it?", etc. Stuff that really made you think about yourself in a different light.
0
Reply
Male 1,204
I find that riddled with fallacies. And all depends on your beliefs and definitions of certain things. Sure it makes your head spin a little, but if this is all our top philosophers can come up with, I`ll stick to my books and remember to not be a philosopher.
0
Reply
Male 437
no yes yes no
0
Reply
Male 356
I`ll just go ahead and handle these, at least for myself.
1. Should we kill 1 to save many? Yes, kill them. Who cares?
2. Are you the same person who started reading this article? irrelevant psychobabble, next.
3. Is there a computer screen in front of you? Yes, otherwise i could not read the rest of your lame babbling.
4. did you really choose to read this article?
Unfortunately, yes. And now i deeply regret it.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
You`re so cunning winner, you outwitted the BBC. Your profound intellect is intimidating.
0
Reply
Male 1,765
1. No. The hostage situation is a fallacy, because either way Bill is going to die. In the organ-donor situation, Bill lives. Anyways, it`s up to Bill to decide if he wants to commit suicide to save others, not your decision to kill him.

2. Yes. I agree that your "essence", or what is truly "you", resides in your mind. And your mind/mental states prevail through your entire life. They might mature and change, but it`s still you.

3. What screen?

4. I did choose to do so. If God happened to know before I did, so be it, but I still chose to do so.

0
Reply
Male 78
1. No, I find it hard to believe Bill "has" to be killed, other organ donors are also options.
2. Yes, if they swapped my brains, wouldn`t it be Bush with my mind? I`d just become someone who has Bush`s brain, I`d remain the same person, I`d be addressed the same, my social security would remain the same, and no one`s going to call me Bush just because I have his mind.
3. By simply changing the situation in which you`re presented, you can flip his proposal upside down. Suppose a car in heading 80mph at you, would you choose to trust your senses and jump out of the way? Or do you choose to believe that you`re senses are unreliable and stay there?
4.Quantum theologists (I believe) stated that there are an infinate amount of dimensions, each with you doing something that differs from which you`re doing in this reality. If such theory would be true, did you simply choose to read this article, or did you read this article because in another reality you chose not to?
0
Reply
Female 590
I thought these were kind of stupid.
0
Reply
Male 254
4: whether my choices were planned out or not, a "god" (if there is one) didnt give me the ability to see my far-future choices or even my near future ones. as far as im concerned, its free will.
0
Reply
Male 1,958
Drat, I missed my 1337 post. Oh well
0
Reply
Male 686
The only things that exist are empty space and atoms. Everything else is opinion.
0
Reply
Female 262
"3. I paid 1300 for this computer. Yes there is a drating screen" LOVE IT!! <3
0
Reply
Male 686
If my mind were in George Bush and Gordon Brown I`d kill myself twice over.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"The person who wrote this is a major d-bag."
He`s not a d-bag, he`s british!

1.A. That guy had nothing to do with the others so no.
1.B. yes. Either way there will be one to die.
1.C. Because Bill didnt do anything. The others got tied up or in a hostage situation

2. I dont want to do an existence one

3. I paid 1300 for this computer. Yes there is a drating screen

4. Fred sucks


0
Reply
Male 254
*obsolete
0
Reply
Male 254
for the computer screen question:

no, its a liquid crystal display that happens to be arranged in such a way that it is called a "screen" and attached to a series of circuits and hardware called a "computer" on a deeper level, no its just a jumble of atoms. It doesnt matter what it is, a computer screen is a label for something that functions in the manner specified by the manufacturer. What it "really" is is an obsolute question.

0
Reply
Female 262
*High fives deltaumarcus*
0
Reply
Male 1,958
My answer to all four is as follows:

*clears throat* Screw you, philosophy! Screw you!

0
Reply
Female 262
*Not-plugged-in shouts dramatically!* SAVE ME SCIENCE FROM THESE ARTY dratS!
0
Reply
Female 175
that was boring
0
Reply
Male 480
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Trick question

That was to easy...

0
Reply
Male 254
for the second question, its the choices and decisions that make a person. if my brain were in George Bush`s head it would be like going from a windows to a mac. Sure the computer controlling the actions are different but in the end hes making the same decisions, just with different hardware. In effect making him the same person
0
Reply
Female 262
These things twist you up in logic with moral things that will never happen in the hope you will express the darker side of human nature...!

Should you kill healthy people for thier organs...? We`ve all seen SAW and the I-A-B posted spoofs, i`m sure we know how this ends.

Are you the same person that started reading this article? Because brain transplants are an *oh so valid example* of personality. This is so lame I refuse to even give it head time.

Is that really a computer screen in front of you? Well it`s not a blinking banana. Before you cn question the foundations of perception try solving creation and existance then ask about the validity of reality, reality can`t be questionned with lack of a source.

Did you really choose to read this article? I am affraid so.... *sighs* I will never get that time back!

0
Reply
Male 338
Nice one, the guy who wrote this is my philosophy lecturer.
Agree with nakoninja, the 1st Q isn`t a good one, but the 2nd is a real thinker...
0
Reply
Male 1,086
That was interesting. My brain lazed around some of the scenarios though.
0
Reply
Female 82
The person who wrote this is a major d-bag.
If I knew him I`d punch him in the face.
0
Reply
Male 254
my reason for number one:

the difference between the first situation and the other two is that in the first, you would be killing a person who has no reason to be in the situation. In a hostage situation, everyone is in the same boat, and the clear best choice is a sacrifice to save the others. the train scenario is the same thing, there all tied to the train, they all ended up in that situation somehow. But killing a man who has no connection or involvement with these 5 strangers would be wrong because he has no ties to the situation in the first place.

0
Reply
Female 10
very compelling
0
Reply
Male 354
also these questions really were not good. the first one was not even good. in the first scenario you kill one to save 5. same with the next one. then it FORCES you to kill one or kill more so that you cant not kill. in the end for that you will kill so of course you will save the most you can. in the other cases you had an option to not kill. not really the same is it?
0
Reply
Male 69
Makes my brain bleed.
0
Reply
Female 94
I think the first poster about to get zapped is more interesting then this article...
0
Reply
Male 354
well then bye bye cjy
0
Reply
Female 931
Nice.
0
Reply
Male 80
Link: 4 Philosophical Questions To Make Your Brain Hurt [Rate Link] - It`s World Philosophy Day: A chance to contemplate one`s very existence and whether computer monitors really exist.
0
Reply