Is Your Neighbour a Zombie?

by JeremyStangroom

Throughout history, philosophers have devised ingenious thought experiments to find solutions to the most fiendish of problems. The world's greatest thinkers have grappled with puzzles such as Free Will, Personal Identity and the Problem of Other Minds. Step into this intriguing world and try your own hand at such conundrums. Weigh up the possible outcomes to decide What Will the Crocodile Do?; ask yourself Can You Be Responsible for What is Unavoidable?; shake up your logical thinking and ponder Is It Rational to Believe in Monsters under the Bed? and figure out an honorable solution to Should You Run Over the Fat Man? This book will hone your mental skills, blow your preconceptions out of the water, and make you think twice about your daily decisions.

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Nonfiction

144 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2012

Reviews

[Snowfire · Rating 2 out of 5]

Eh. Okay, I like *the idea* of this book (problems of philosophy presented as open-ended questions), and in fact I'd authentically recommend it to kids! Just some things are... off. And while the book is amusing at times, it never really makes its way up to "funny". Alas.

So... examples.
A) The book presents the "Crocodile's dilemma" puzzle, except muffs it. Won't go into spoilers, but in the author's scenario, he messed up the problem definition and gave a non-paradoxical version which has a simple and obvious answer (the crocodile will return the kidnapped victim, always, in both variants!). Okay, the *intent* is obvious enough once you read the back, but this isn't wholly uncommon; a number of scenarios have seemingly easy answers to which, reading the back, you can see the author didn't really mean that as the problem.
B) Non-snappy writing: The dilemma that's the book's title. One puzzle is, how can you prove that you're not a philosophical zombie? The answer *should* have been, in big bold letters, nope, you can't. That's the whole point: philosophical zombies are by definition indistinguishable from normal people, and the logical discussion then is whether "consciousness" really exists. The author's little explanation of the Problem of Other Minds is fine, but if you're going to phrase this as a puzzle, give the payoff first! Then go into the longer discussion about why, even if you can't *prove* you're not a zombie, here are reasons to think otherwise, or to think the problem itself is stating assumptions that aren't true. For another example, one of the problems is phrased as a matter of law: is it okay to kill someone to save your own life? Again the author misses out the chance to be snappy, as this is in fact a question with a real answer: no! In law systems descended from English law, at least. So sure, talk about the moral quandry, but you can give the legal answer, too, if you're going to raise it in your puzzle.
C) I don't hold this hugely against the author, because a number of other philosophers have spun in circles on this too, but there are a number of puzzles that are really questions of semantics. In other words, if Wittgenstein was here, he'd smack both parties on the head as they're really arguing about how a term should be defined, not any real difference in opinion. I don't mind bringing this puzzles up, but some kind of discussion in the answers about how some believe this is merely a matter of semantics and not reality would have been nice. Example: one puzzle is basically "is it fair to something was possible if it never actually happened despite trying?" Well, if by "possible" you mean things like "you bought valid lottery tickets that you could have legally traded in if they had the winning numbers", then yes, it was possible. If by "possible" you mean "will happen in the future in a deterministic universe", then no, it was impossible to win the lottery because of fate. There's no philosophical dispute here, just a dispute over whether possible1 or possible2 is the better meaning for the word "possible."

Anyway, I hope I don't sound too harsh. It's a short & easy read at least, and "amusing" is enough as a time-passer on the bus.

[Pedro Pascoe · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked this book up as I needed a quick read somewhere out and about a few weeks back. It's a charming little introduction to a range of philosophical and not so philosophical conundrums geared towards the average reader with little to no background in philosophy.
The book starts out with some classic logic problems, and the Valid or Invalid entry in chapter one is good revision for the Logic unit I took in Philosophy in uni, way back when, which, it must be admitted, has long fallen by the wayside for me.
Chapter 4, How Obedient Are We? covers issues dealing with society and group behavior, and read more like issues regarding psychology rather than philosophy (another subject that fell by the wayside for me. It was all fun and games until we hit Statistics...), so while interesting from that point of view, I thought it could have been left out in favour of more conundrums the likes of which were dealt with in the other chapters.
One of the philosophical issues covered here that I've long grappled with personally were 'Is Tom Pearce Tom Pearce?', or whether an exact replica of yourself is still yourself, even if the original is destroyed. The argument, in science fiction, that Teleportation is murder is covered by a book I hope to read sometime soon, and this issue in general is touched upon in various ways by Rudy Rucker and Christopher Priest, to mention but a few.
Another is the 'Are We Brains In Vats?' conundrum, popularised by The Matrix. Apart from the logical puzzles in Chapter one, the book makes it clear that there are no clear answers. In short replies to each puzzle presented, the book covers the issue, with classic arguments in support or against, and presents some ways in approaching the issues rather than just leaving them as head-scratchers.
All in all, a quick intro and modern popular re-presentation of some classical philosophical nut-scratchers, good for a toilet read, or a train read, or a launching pad to works of more serious note (an index in the back of the book to that effect is sadly lacking). Also a good approach for getting your head into the space required for thinking about stories on a more meaningful level.

[Aravena · Rating 3 out of 5]

Buku kumpulan teka-teki yang cocok untuk penikmat filsafat (baca: orang yang kalau tengah malam kadang kepikiran, apa dia ini betul-betul manusia atau makhluk lain yang mengira dirinya manusia).

Deretan teka-teki di sini dibagi jadi beberapa tema filosofis, masing-masing menampilkan skenario-skenario dengan pertanyaan semacam.... apa lift di apartemen itu betul-betul rusak, atau itu hanya masalah persepsi pemakainya? Kenapa si tukang cukur kabur sewaktu ada peraturan bahwa semua orang tidak boleh memotong rambutnya sendiri dan harus ke tukang cukur? Apa ada cara untuk membuktikan bahwa kita bukanlah zombi ke para tetangga yang sudah curiga duluan?

Begitulah, teka-teki di sini banyak melibatkan logika, probabilitas, silogisme, dan kemampuan berpikir rasional dengan menyingkirkan bias subjektif yang sering menyesatkan kita ke jawaban yang salah. Lebih berupa eksperimen pikiran (thought experiment) ketimbang skenario yang akrab dengan kehidupan sehari-hari, lengkap dengan bagian penjelasan untuk setiap teka-teki panjang. Kadang yang menarik bukan jawaban teka-tekinya sendiri, tapi filosofi di baliknya atau mengapa kita bisa terkecoh. Jujur, ada penalaran di bagian penjelasan yang gagal saya ikuti, entah karena alih bahasa yang kurang luwes atau kinerja otak saya yang kurang mumpuni untuk mencerna... haha...

Jumlah teka-teki di sini rasanya kurang banyak, dan jelas tidak saya rekomendasikan untuk yang malas baca ocehan filosofis panjang lebar. Namun, secara keseluruhan cukup menghibur (ada dua kali kejadian saat saya harus letakkan bukunya dulu supaya bisa ngakak) dan memicu untuk berpikir kritis. Ada juga selipan beberapa tebak-tebakan kilat yang bisa dipakai untuk ngerjain orang dilempar ke orang-orang sekitar, seperti contoh satu ini:

"Seseorang yang sedang dihukum mati harus memilih antara tiga ruangan:

(1) Ruangan penuh api menyala
(2) Ruangan penuh pembunuh dengan pistol berpeluru
(3) Ruangan penuh singa yang belum makan tiga tahun

Ruangan mana yang sebaiknya ia pilih?

Jawaban: Ruangan 3, karena singa-singa itu harusnya sudah mati :v

[Heri · Rating 3 out of 5]

buku yang menarik yg membahas tentang masalah2 logika, nalar, dilema dan kasus2 yang pasti dihadapi manusia yang tidak bisa dinilai benar dan salah secara sederhana

beberapa kasus ada yg saya kenal seperti dilema masinis kereta yang harus memilih dua rel yang sama2 ada orang yg diikat di atas rel (hal 34-35), paradoks kemahakuasaan (hal 36-37) melakukan tindakan kejam atas perintah dan aturan (hal 28=29)
ada juga banyak kasus yang belum saya tahu dan menambah pengetahuan yang menarik

disertai nama2 filsuf, istilah dan teori yang diajukan para pakar tentang masalah yang memang dibahas dan diteliti. ditulis dengan kalimat yang mudah dipahami orang awam, kecuali satu kasus terakhir yang meski dibaca perlahan-lahan dan beberapa kali tetap sulit untuk dipahami

ditambah dengan kuis ringan sebagai hiburan untuk mengasah otak dan ketelitian, buku ini cukup bagus untuk menambah wawasan pikiran tentang logika, nalar dan masalah nyata

[em! · Rating 2 out of 5]

if you have time to kill and are EXTREMELY bored it COULD be a fun quick read. Otherwise.. just keep reading what your reading or pick up another book.

When to read: waiting for the shower to heat up, taking a shit, waiting for an Uber to show up, in line for a coffee.

[claudia v · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very clever little book

[Reza Yogatama · Rating 4 out of 5]

Akhirnya selesai pas di hari pertama cuti. Lumayan menghibur dan memberi pengetahuan filosofis "ada juga ya pemikiran seperti ini".

[Ruth · Rating 4 out of 5]

That was fun!

[Firat Tarman · Rating 3 out of 5]

İlginç, kafa karıştırıcı bulmacalar. Çok da olağanüstü değil, çerez niyetine okunabilir. İlk kitap ile benzer, dolayısı ile aynı yıldız sayısı :)

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh

[Zaki Ibrahim · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short introduction to different puzzles in Philosophy as well as relevant themes. Good introductory book to those interested.