belief poll #2

[spoonless]

This time I made sure that the lower end of the range is 0 rather than 1, to make it symmetric with the 10. I don't know why lj defaults to 1-10... I was lazy last time and just left it how they set it up.

I know different people mean different things by choosing different numbers, so to standardize try and do it this way: pick 10 if you are 95%-100% confident that the statement is true. Pick 0 if you are 0-5% confident (in other words, 95%-100% confident it's false). Pick 9 if you are 85%-95% confident it's true. Pick 5 if you are 45-55% confident it's true (in other words, you don't know). I'm going to take browascension's suggestion this time and say that if you're unfamiliar with the topic, just skip it rather than picking 5.

I tried to pick questions that I was a little more agnostic on this time... last time I had too many extreme responses, both from myself and from everyone, so hopefully this one will be more mixed.

[Poll #1438874]

Comments

[pazi-ashfeather.livejournal.com]

1

It is borderline incomprehensible to me that this would be otherwise, given that there doesn't seem to be anything special about the neural hardware for it and animals respond in ways that appear pained when hurt.

2

Skipped question.

I need to know what the asker means by "conscious" here; it's a very slippery term and I don't feel comfortable assuming I know how to read it.

3 Skipped

I do not believe moral statements are truth-apt (non-cognitivism); I believe they express emotional states instead.

4

If you consider other living things to have utility functions. I place a very high aesthetic value on this but don't consider it a meaningful statement outside the context of subjective judgement.

5

See above, but get rid of the business of utility functions (I don't believe they apply to inanimate matter, and only in a weak sort of way to living things). Aesthetically, I place a lot of emphasis on it.

6

No. I believe that general intelligence can make a difference in one's performance, but that it is not the only way to produce high results and that it does not reliably screen for it.

7

No. This is due to cultural and social factors, not genetic ones.

8

I don't know.

9

No; this is due to cultural and social factors, and when those factors are compensate for the difference disappears.

10

I don't know.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

I need to know what the asker means by "conscious" here; it's a very slippery term and I don't feel comfortable assuming I know how to read it.

Personally, I think there are so many different meanings and interpretations for the word consciousness that we will never be able to settle on one precise meaning for it. So what the question is really asking is just if you're comfortable applying that term to chimpanzees... so part of what it's asking is what your definition of consciousness is.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

Oh, and regarding morals, I'm a non-cognitivist as well. When I hear someone say something is immoral, I always take it as a statement about what they like or dislike... albeit a particular kind of desire.

[perspectivism.livejournal.com]

I am amused that I answered an absolute extreme at every question I chose to answer this round! I was much more legitimately uncertain about the last batch (alien life out there in the stars, and all that). This round...the questions are either moral ones (depending a TON on what exactly you mean by the moral language)...or basically settled fact IMO. Sometimes I personally don't yet KNOW the settled fact (how weak EMH has to get to apply to various stock markets, e.g.; just not my field), but often I do and am amazed that my understanding (no, I won't say 'view' or such to feign humility) is not more widespread. I blame religion. Not literally religion in the narrow sense...but basically yeah.

[perspectivism.livejournal.com]

(hi, pazi, I have no idea who you are & had meant to reply to the main post. Mea culpa!)