In many cases, difficult to understand the philosophical proposition compiled a little story, is a good way to explain them. The following are the nine famous egg pain philosophizing.
[1.] Prisoner's Dilemma
The classic thought experiment say it is difficult to choose a suspect (foreign) face: to remain silent, or provoke truthfully. The difficulty is, the suspect would not know how to choose his associates.
Here is a streamlined version of the "prisoner's dilemma", drawn from the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy":
Tanya and Cinque Hibernia Savings Bank robbery was arrested, imprisoned in different cell separately. Compared associates, they are more worried about their freedom. A clever interrogator gave two such conditions: "You can choose to remain silent or to confess if you move, but you do not have a partner, I would give up all the charges against you, then you use your testimony alleged accomplices. However, if your partner confessed, but you did not, then they can be let go, it's your turn of luck. If both of you move, then I'll QC everyone, but I could be given to you parole. If you remain silent, I will sue you for illegal gun crime. If you want to move, just before I come back tomorrow morning to the guards to leave a message.
This thought experiment tells us that, in the absence of full information, and the face of self-interest driven down, it is difficult to make the right choice in favor of the owner. This dilemma is, for all prisoners themselves, the confession favorable than silence - but the fact is all the best choice to remain silent.
This situation is "international cooperation" (including the prohibition of nuclear weapons), and we communicate with extraterrestrial life (for example, ignoring the interstellar civilization mutually advantageous cooperation factor, certainly than their first release off the other big move is the best policy) abound,
[2. neuroscientist Mary never seen color]
This problem is also known as "reverse spectrum (Inverted spectrum) problems", or "Demonstration of knowledge (Knowledge Argument)." The meaning of the thought experiment is to "explain the universe from a purely physical point of view" of criticism, including "intelligence activities are also physical process' point of view. This experiment revealed the presence of "non-physical properties" - and the knowledge available to us - only from experience through awareness activities.
Frank Jackson explained the idea of the experiment:
Mary was a gifted psychiatrist, but for some reason, she was locked in a small room in black and white, a black and white TV by observing the whole world. Her research focuses on visual perception, we assume that her study is about how we see ripe tomatoes, the sky, the relationship between the retina can receive the wavelength of light, and "red", "blue" and other words breath through the lungs, read "the sky is blue" in this sentence (in other words, Mary only know the relationship between color and wavelength and vocabulary.), then when Mary is released from the black and white world to the real world when or to give her time and space a color TV, she can learn new knowledge do?
In other words, Mary know all about color physics, but apart from one: she had never experienced the world of color. Her first experience of color, and she is never real-world knowledge and experience on the books is a huge difference.
This thought experiment tells us, than objective scientific observation, we can experience is always more to be rich, including consciousness itself. It essentially tells us that we can not know that we do not know something, this experiment also gives us hope for the we should think of ways to expand our awareness and level of consciousness, we can open up new psychological learn and explore new ways subjective.
[3. Box "Gad gun"]
This is also known as "whisper paradox", but also, and Shang Yize experiment a bit like. In such a thought experiment proposed by the philosopher Wittgenstein, the challenges our ability to use language to express the view.
In this experiment, Wittgenstein let us imagine a group of people, everyone has a box, the box filled with a kind of "Buddha gun 'thing called. They are not allowed to see each other in a box thing. Because each person box where things are not the same, they were asked to describe their own "Buddha gun." So Wittgenstein says, the expression process ensued, not become part of the "language games (language course)", although they continue to describe the box of stuff, but for "Buddha gun 'understanding of the word, stop at" one in his box of stuff "on this level.
Why should we make such a thought experiment it annoying? The significance of the experiment is that our ideology, like the "Buddha gun," we will never know exactly what other people think, what other people are saying in the end, or else consider a different perspective of the issue.
[4] Chinese Room
Philosopher John Searle Let us imagine a scenario where a person only know English, he sat in the room, answering people outside the Chinese to raise this issue, but the room who had a question and answer manual control, so you can make people think outside the room who understand Chinese (but not actually completely)
The paradox is that he reveals a fact: even very advanced computer technology, has been to look at the use natural language to communicate with people, but they still can not really understand We have the language itself. This is because in essence, the computer always just be limited to the "operation of the character" on. "Chinese room paradox" known is that it completely get rid of the reliability of the "Turing argument", and succinctly describes the artificial intelligence can achieve the ultimate, including machine learning, artificial intelligence and the possibility of potential.
Searle's view is correct, that there may appear artificial intelligence looks like a human and have the same sense? This is unlikely, because the AI can only pretend to do. So, we face around these "smart tech," we must be very careful.
[Machine] 5. Experience
Philosopher Robert Nozick's "experience machine" implies a "pleasure version" of the Matrix world. In this 1974 issue of "anarchism, State and Utopia," he wrote:
Suppose there is such an "experience machine" will give you whatever you want to experience. Great neuroscience can simulate any of your brain activity, so you might think they are really compose masterpieces, and Wallace laughing, or being bored in the brush Fig. In fact, you're just floating in a tank, stuck behind the circuit line. You will not be forever this way, pre-written script of his life? Of course, you do not know that he was just a jar of pickles, I really thought he was being Apprentice ...... you'll plug in the tube it?
Here, the fundamental point is that we should probably plugged pipe, a cylinder made pickles. Because we live in this universe without any clear purpose, and often surrounded by meaningless environment, trials and tribulations, we have no reason to refuse to be essentially better choice - even if it is artificial. But as a man of "dignity" mean? And what is "real" definition? Nozick's thought experiment may be easily laugh it off, but it really bothered philosophers for decades.
[6.] problem tram
This is ethicists question - you have to feel the pain, it seems odd famous philosopher Philippa Foot made it. There are many variations of this experiment, but first appeared in Foot 1967 published paper, "abortion and dogmatic double impact" on.
Suppose you are in a Rails Barrier lever front, the distance a runaway train rushing. Tracks you here in two, while five people, while 1 person. If you do nothing, the train killed five people, but if you choose to change lanes, killing one person, how you choose.
For utilitarians, the extenuating circumstances that the person killed. Kant scholars argue that the interests of people not in consideration of moral judgment is not based on the results, but the motivation, they will move you can not put an individual at the expense of five other men were rescued. So, you should do nothing.
In another version of this thought experiment, there is no fork in the road, but more of a crowd of super fat, this fat omelette like to see the dead can completely block the train and rescued five people, so you'll not the fat man down on the tracks?
This thought experiment reveals the complexity of moral judgment, between killing a man watching a group of people died to make a choice - an eternal stalemate in moral issues of our law, behavior, science, politics and war among. "Justice" and "evil" is never as simple as it sounds.
Xiaobian Note: We can also do this experiment, if that individual tracks on you, you would not choose to kill themselves to save five others.
[7.] spider urinal
This question is reminiscent of Plato's "Cave Theory" is also a classic thought experiment. In her novel "life, death, and the meaning of life" presented by the Thomas Nagel, it is meaningless and absurd discussions about life. He taught at Princeton University when I saw a spider in the men's room urinal, so inspired. Spiders have been very tragic look, from time to time the urine is one, but "it does not look like such a life." He went on to say:
Gradually, I encounter and it makes me feel bad. Of course, this may be its instincts, but because of the surrounding cliffs and smooth, it will not go anywhere, but it can not really want to go ...... So, when the day of the end of the semester, I pull a length of toilet paper, hanging close to it. Its legs to catch the end, and then I carry it up and set it on the floor.
It silently stayed there motionless. I used toilet paper to poke it several times, and still nothing happened ...... I'm gone, but two hours later, I went back to the toilet, where it is not moving.
The next day and still, its legs have been curling, just like a dead spider. Its body was so stayed there for a week, then the cleaners swept away.
Nagel because emotional resonance that spiders should live better - and even enjoy life - to leave the toilet. But the result was just the opposite, he killed the spider.
8. Replace [Paradox]
In this thought experiment, we came to a bad human meat in the world. In such a world, there is no any kind of animals are used as livestock feed. So the number of cattle in the world, pigs, sheep, chickens dropped. As Virginia Woolf wrote: "The debate about vegetarianism is more intense than the humanitarian pigs will have a strong desire to make themselves into bacon if Earth were Jews, then the pig became extinct..."
Along this logic, we will export some of the strange contradictory conclusions. For example, is not 20 million people in the world than one billion poor people's social surplus to the good. If not, then why not eliminate another billion people? Why do we continue to live without bitterness do such things?
[9.] Back to square one
This is a thought experiment, is the reason I became a diehard John Rawls. He told us in a fantasy world, we know nothing about their own lives - to live in the back "veil of ignorance", our current political system and ignorant of the law. But I do not know what psychology, economics, biology, and other scientific knowledge. But for such a group in the original state, we asked them to let people choose one that best suits them, fair system from a long list of various social systems, without telling them anything about the interests and the real world.
So, if you do not know after selecting such a system, what kind of people will be back to the real world, for example, you are a poor people living in rural India? A Norwegian middle class? Or a disabled person, a millionaire? (Or another organism?)
According to Rawls's argument, we will choose to guarantee the basic rights and obligations of fairness, equality and the protection of property and freedom of citizenship system, and the pursuit of covering the widest range of well-being. And he believes that we will choose a guarantee equal rights and equal right to work education social system.
(Via io9)
Baidu know without a daily newspaper written permission, any units and individuals shall not in any way or reason to know that Baidu content published daily use, copy, modify, copied, transmitted, or bundled with other products use, sale. Where the infringement of intellectual property Baidu know daily, it will pursue its legal responsibility according to the law. Application for authorization and commercial cooperation please contact zhidaoribao@baidu.com
Article Source: Baidu know daily (http://zhidao.baidu.com/daily)
Original link: http: //zhidao.baidu.com/daily/view id = 471?