I didn’t think any of the philosophical questions were difficult. If you don’t cloud you’re thinking with any metaphysical bullshit, the answers are obvious.
1. Suppose scientists figure out the exact state of the universe during the big bang, and figure out all the laws of physics as well. They put this information into a computer, and the computer perfectly predicts everything that has ever happened. In other words, they prove that everything that happens, has to happen exactly that way because of the laws of physics and everything that’s come before. In this case, is a person free to choose whether or not to murder someone?
No. If everything is deterministic, then all perceived “decisions” are just illusions. Your brain chemistry is making the decisons. You have nothing to do with it.
Of course, the concept of libertarian free will is still logical nonsense even if everything is NOT deterministic. If it’s random, it’s still not autonomous. Trying to identify a mechanism for automous will always leads to an infinite regression.
2. Suppose you drive to the local baseball stadium with some friends, and try to buy tickets at the door. There are 7 of you, but there are only 6 tickets left. You can either drive everyone to a nearby bar, which will be a lot less fun than being at the game, or 6 of you can go in, and 1 of you can take the bus home and miss the game entirely. Is it most fair for everyone to go to the bar?
Don’t fuck your bro, man. Go to the bar. You’ll still have a good time, I promise.
3. Suppose a mad scientist takes out your brain, and puts it in your best friend’s head. During the same operation, the scientist takes out your friend’s brain, and puts it in your head. Now your body has your friend’s brain, and your friend’s body has your brain. Your heroic mother storms into the room to save you, but not your friend, who she believes got you into this mess. Is the person with your body still you, her son?
This is a bit of a semantic question, but I said no. The person is the personality. The personality is the brain.
4. Suppose neurologists are able to identify every part and every connection in the human brain. Working with a team of computer scientists, they then build a robot that has a complete electronic replica of the human brain. Could this robot experience love?
Assuming all the chemistry can be duplicated exactly, the answer is yes. There’s nothing non-material about emotional states.
5. Suppose that all you know about Einstein is that he developed the Theory of Relativity. But suppose it turns out that Einstein actually stole the idea from some guy named Moynahan, who nobody has ever heard of. In this case, when you use the name “Einstein,” are you actually referring to Moynahan?
No. It just means you don’t know something you thought you knew about Einstein.
6. Suppose you hear the sound of your cell phone, so you reach in your pocket and answer the call. Your landlord is on the line, but you realize later that your ringer was off, and the sound you heard was actually someone else’s phone. When you heard that other person’s phone ring and mistook it as your own, did you actually know someone was calling you?
No. I think this one’s pretty self-evident.
7. Suppose you meet a man from the future who knows everything there is to know about science. He tells you that he doesn’t like apples, and says that though he has never eaten one, he has figured out what apples taste like just by studying the relevant science. Could he know what apples taste like without ever having eaten one?
Yes, assuming a perfectly detailed understanding of taste sensations. This is the only question I wasn’t instantly sure of, though.
8. Suppose scientists are able to use stem cells to grow lungs that breathe without being connected to a body. They then grow a heart that pumps without being connected to a body. If they can do all this, can they create a brain that thinks without being connected to a body?
I answered yes to this one, but it isn’t really constructed that well. There is no way to necessarily infer a conclusion one way or the other from the predicates, but I chose to interpret the question as asking whether there is anything innately more impossible about growing a brain than growing any other organ. I said there was not
9. Suppose a runaway train is coming down a track, and is certain to kill five workmen who can’t get out of the way. You’re standing next to the controls and can switch the train to the other track, but if you flip the switch, one man working on that track is sure to die. Should you flip the switch?
Given no other knowledge, you do what will save the most lives. This hypothetical can get more complicated, though, if you start applying specific identities to the potential victims. What if the one is a baby? What if it’s YOUR baby? What if the five guys are Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?
These kinds of hypotheticals are always annoying. You try to do the least harm you can with the data you have available.