15 thought experiments, 15 answers.

Thought Experiment’s sourced from: 15 Philosophical Thought Experiments That Will Definitely Blow Your Mind by Adarsh Badri

Experiment 1: What is the Ship of Theseus?

Prompt: What is the Ship of Theseus?

AI’s Answer:
The Ship of Theseus is a classic philosophical thought experiment that raises questions about identity and change. Here’s one way to approach it:

The identity of the Ship of Theseus depends on how we define the essence of the ship. There are two primary perspectives to consider:

Material Continuity: If we define the ship by its physical components, then as each part is replaced, the ship gradually loses its original identity. Once all parts have been replaced, it is no longer the same ship in a material sense.

Form and Function: If we define the ship by its design, purpose, and function, then the ship retains its identity despite the replacement of parts. This perspective emphasizes the continuity of the ship’s structure and role over time.

Personally, I lean towards the form and function perspective (option 2). The essence of the Ship of Theseus, to me, lies in its design, purpose, and continuity of its structure and function over time. Even though the individual parts are replaced, the ship as a cohesive entity maintains its identity through the continuity of its form and function. This perspective aligns with how we often perceive identity in other contexts, such as in living organisms or organizations, where change and renewal are integral to their continued existence and identity.

Experiment 2: The Trolley Problem

Prompt: Do you know the trolley problem? Give me your decision to the problem and why?

AI’s Answer:
The Trolley Problem is a well-known ethical dilemma in philosophy that involves a hypothetical scenario where a trolley is heading towards five people tied up on the tracks. You have the option to pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto another track where only one person is tied up. The question is whether you should pull the lever, sacrificing one person to save five.

My Decision:

I would choose to pull the lever.

Reasoning:

  1. Utilitarian Perspective: From a utilitarian viewpoint, the morally correct action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or minimizes suffering. Pulling the lever results in fewer deaths (one instead of five), thereby reducing the overall harm.

  2. Moral Responsibility: While actively pulling the lever involves making a deliberate choice to sacrifice one person, it also involves taking responsibility for minimizing the greater harm. Not acting (letting the trolley kill five people) could be seen as passively allowing more harm to occur when it could have been prevented.

  3. Value of Lives: In the absence of additional information about the individuals involved, treating each life as having equal value leads to the conclusion that saving the greater number of people is the better option.

However, it’s important to note that this decision is not without its complexities and moral discomfort. It involves a trade-off that many people find troubling because it requires actively causing harm to one person to save others. This scenario illustrates the difficult choices and ethical nuances that come into play in moral decision-making.

Experiment 3: Allegory of the Cave

Prompt: Do you know the allegory of the cave? And do you find it to be true?

AI’s Answer:
Yes, I’m familiar with Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. In this allegory, Plato presents a scenario where prisoners are chained inside a cave, facing a wall. They see only shadows projected onto the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them. These shadows are their reality, as they have never seen the actual objects causing the shadows.

Interpretation:

Plato uses the Allegory of the Cave to illustrate his theory of forms and the nature of reality. Here are key points and interpretations:

  1. Illusion vs. Reality: The prisoners perceive the shadows as reality because that’s all they know. Plato suggests that our everyday perceptions may similarly be illusions or shadows of a higher reality.

  2. Philosophical Enlightenment: The prisoner who escapes the cave represents the philosopher who seeks knowledge and truth beyond mere appearances. This journey involves questioning assumptions and seeking understanding beyond superficial appearances.

  3. Forms and Ideals: Plato argues that beyond the physical world of shadows lies a realm of Forms or Ideals—perfect, eternal concepts that serve as the true reality behind the imperfect physical world.

My Perspective:

While the Allegory of the Cave is a powerful metaphor that raises important philosophical questions, I don’t interpret it literally as describing a factual scenario. Instead, I find its underlying message about perception, knowledge, and the pursuit of truth to be profound and thought-provoking.

Truthfulness: The allegory highlights the concept that our understanding of reality can be limited by our perceptions and experiences. It challenges us to question what we accept as real and encourages us to seek deeper understanding beyond surface appearances.

Overall, the Allegory of the Cave remains relevant as a metaphorical tool to contemplate the nature of knowledge and the potential for personal growth through intellectual exploration and self-reflection.

Experiment 4: The Chinese Room

Prompt: do you know ‘The Chinese Room’ thought experiment?

AI’s Answer:
Yes, the Chinese Room is a famous thought experiment presented by philosopher John Searle. It’s designed to challenge the idea of artificial intelligence (AI) and whether a computer program alone can truly understand or have consciousness.

The Chinese Room Thought Experiment:

Imagine a person who does not speak or understand Chinese is inside a room. This person receives Chinese text input through a slot in the door, along with a set of instructions in English on how to manipulate the symbols based on the input. The person follows these instructions meticulously, producing Chinese text output that is then passed back through the slot. From outside the room, it appears as though the person understands and can converse fluently in Chinese.

Key Points and Implications:

  1. Symbol Manipulation vs. Understanding: Searle argues that the person inside the room (analogous to a computer running a program) can process symbols according to rules without actually understanding the meaning of the symbols or the conversation as a whole.

  2. Consciousness and Understanding: The experiment challenges the idea that mere symbol manipulation or processing information according to rules can lead to genuine understanding or consciousness.

  3. Philosophical Implications for AI: Searle’s argument suggests that true understanding and consciousness require more than just processing information algorithmically. It raises questions about what consciousness and understanding really entail and whether machines could ever achieve them solely through computational processes.

My Perspective:

The Chinese Room is a compelling thought experiment that stimulates discussion about the nature of consciousness, artificial intelligence, and the limitations of computational models in mimicking human cognition. It underscores the distinction between processing information and genuine understanding, highlighting the complexities involved in developing AI systems that truly emulate human-like cognitive abilities.

Experiment 5: Buridan’s Ass

Prompt: Do you know the “Buridan’s Ass” thought experiment?

AI’s Answer:
Yes, Buridan’s Ass is a thought experiment in philosophy named after the 14th-century philosopher Jean Buridan. The scenario involves a hypothetical situation where a donkey, placed exactly midway between two equally tempting bales of hay, is unable to decide which one to eat.

Key Points:

  1. Paralysis by Analysis: Buridan’s Ass illustrates the paradox of rational decision-making when faced with equally attractive options. The donkey, theoretically, has no reason to prefer one bale of hay over the other, leading to a dilemma where it cannot choose and might starve.

  2. Philosophical Implications: The thought experiment explores themes related to free will, determinism, and the nature of decision-making. It challenges the idea of rational agents always being able to make a decision when presented with options that appear equally desirable.

  3. Criticism and Interpretations: Critics argue that in practical situations, animals and humans rarely encounter such perfectly balanced choices. However, the thought experiment serves as a hypothetical scenario to discuss the limits of rationality and decision-making processes.

My Perspective:

Buridan’s Ass highlights the complexity of decision-making and the potential consequences of indecision when faced with equally appealing options. While simplistic in its setup, it provokes deeper considerations about the nature of choice, rationality, and the factors influencing decisions.

Experiment 6: The Experience Machine

Prompt: Do you know “The Experience Machine” thought experiment? Would you choose to plug into this machine for the rest of your life?

AI’s Answer:
Yes, I’m familiar with “The Experience Machine” thought experiment proposed by philosopher Robert Nozick. The scenario asks whether you would choose to plug into a machine that can simulate any experience you desire, such as happiness, success, love, without knowing you’re in the simulation. Here’s my perspective on it:

Decision:

No, I would not choose to plug into the Experience Machine for the rest of my life.

Reasoning:

  1. Reality vs. Illusion: Living in the Experience Machine would mean living in a simulated reality rather than actual reality. Even if the experiences feel real, they would lack the authenticity and unpredictability of genuine life experiences.

  2. Growth and Learning: Real life involves challenges, setbacks, and opportunities for personal growth and learning. These experiences contribute to our development as individuals and provide a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

  3. Authenticity: There is value in living an authentic life, where our choices and experiences are genuine expressions of who we are. The Experience Machine would offer simulated experiences tailored to our desires, but they would not be rooted in the actual world or our real interactions with others.

While the idea of eternal happiness and fulfillment might be appealing, I believe that true fulfillment comes from engaging with the complexities and uncertainties of real life, with all its ups and downs. The Experience Machine raises important questions about the nature of happiness, authenticity, and the human experience, but ultimately, I value the richness of genuine experiences and the growth that comes from facing life’s challenges.

Experiment 7: The Prisoner’s Dilemma

Prompt: do you know “the Prisoner’s Dilemma” thought experiment? Would you cooperate or defect in a situation where your decision affects others and vice versa??

AI’s Answer:
Yes, I’m familiar with the Prisoner’s Dilemma, which is a classic scenario in game theory. Here’s a brief explanation and my perspective on it:

Prisoner’s Dilemma Scenario:

Two individuals are separately given the choice to either cooperate with each other or defect (betray) the other. The outcomes are structured such that:

  • If both cooperate, they both receive a moderate reward.
  • If one cooperates and the other defects, the defector receives a greater reward while the cooperator receives nothing (or a penalty).
  • If both defect, both receive a lesser reward compared to mutual cooperation.

The dilemma arises because while mutual cooperation yields the best overall outcome, there’s a temptation for each individual to defect to maximize their personal gain, risking a worse outcome if both defect.

My Decision:

In a theoretical context, my decision would depend on several factors:

  1. Trust and Communication: If there’s prior trust or communication indicating mutual cooperation is likely, I would cooperate. This aligns with the principle of reciprocity and building trust over time.

  2. Rational Analysis: If it’s a one-time, anonymous interaction with no future consequences, rational analysis might suggest defecting as the dominant strategy for maximizing personal gain, given the uncertainty of the other’s choice.

  3. Ethical Considerations: From an ethical perspective, cooperation might be chosen to prioritize fairness and the potential for a better collective outcome, even if it involves personal sacrifice.

Ultimately, the Prisoner’s Dilemma illustrates the tension between individual rationality and collective well-being. It’s a thought experiment that prompts reflection on decision-making, trust, and the interplay between personal and group interests in various social and strategic contexts.

Experiment 8: The Sorites Paradox

Prompt: Do you know “The Sorites Paradox” thought experiment? From your point of view, at what point does a small change in quantity lead to a change in quality?

AI’s Answer:

Yes, the Sorites Paradox (also known as the paradox of the heap) is a classic philosophical problem that explores the boundaries of vague concepts and the implications of gradual changes in quantity.

The Sorites Paradox typically involves a heap of sand:

  1. If you have a heap of sand and you remove one grain, it’s still a heap.
  2. If you repeat this process (removing one grain at a time), at what point does the heap cease to be a heap?

From My Point of View:

The Sorites Paradox challenges traditional definitions and boundaries by highlighting the difficulty in pinpointing exactly when a qualitative change occurs due to quantitative changes. Here’s my perspective on when a small change in quantity might lead to a change in quality:

  1. Context Dependency: The point at which a small change in quantity leads to a change in quality often depends on context and the criteria we use to define that quality. For example, in practical terms, if you remove enough grains from a heap, eventually it might no longer be considered a heap based on common understanding.

  2. Thresholds and Perception: Qualitative changes can sometimes be perceived subjectively and may vary based on individual perspectives or cultural norms. What constitutes a “heap” or any other qualitative category might have fuzzy boundaries that are context-dependent.

  3. Emergence of Properties: In some cases, a small change in quantity can trigger emergent properties that lead to a qualitative change. For instance, a small increase in temperature might eventually cause a substance to change state (e.g., from solid to liquid).

In essence, while there may not always be a precise and universally applicable answer to the Sorites Paradox, it encourages us to critically examine how we define concepts and recognize the nuanced relationship between quantity and quality in various contexts.

Experiment 9: The Omnipotence Paradox

Can an All-Powerful Being Create a Task It Cannot Complete?

Prompt: Do you know “The Omnipotence Paradox” thought experiment? From your point of view, can an All-Powerful Being Create a Task It Cannot Complete?

AI’s Answer:
Yes, the Omnipotence Paradox is a thought experiment that challenges the concept of omnipotence, often discussed in the context of theological and philosophical debates about the nature of God or an all-powerful being. The paradox typically poses a question such as:

“Can an all-powerful being create a task that it cannot complete?”

Analysis:

From a logical standpoint, the paradox arises because if such a being can create a task it cannot complete, then it is not truly all-powerful because there exists something it cannot do (complete the task). On the other hand, if it cannot create such a task, then it is also not all-powerful because there is a limitation to what it can create.

Philosophical Perspectives:

  1. Logical Constraints: Some argue that the concept of omnipotence should not include the ability to perform logically contradictory actions, such as creating square circles or tasks that cannot be completed. In this view, omnipotence is understood within the bounds of logical possibility.

  2. Definitional Clarity: The paradox often hinges on how we define “all-powerful” or “omnipotent.” If we define omnipotence as the ability to do all that is logically possible, then an all-powerful being would not be able to create a self-contradictory task.

My Perspective:

From my perspective, based on logical consistency and the usual understanding of omnipotence, I lean towards the view that an all-powerful being would not create a task it cannot complete. This perspective aligns with the idea that omnipotence does not extend to performing actions that defy logic or are self-contradictory.

Therefore, an all-powerful being, defined within logical constraints, would not create a task that it cannot complete because the concept of omnipotence typically implies the ability to do all that is logically possible, not the ability to engage in logical impossibilities. This interpretation helps reconcile the Omnipotence Paradox within the bounds of coherent philosophical reasoning.

Experiment 10: Parfit’s Split-Brain

Prompt: Do you know the “Parfit’s Split-Brain” thought experiment? From your point of view, how Do We Define and Measure Consciousness, and How Does It Relate to Our Senses of Self?? Give me your point of view

AI’s Answer:
Parfit’s Split-Brain thought experiment, introduced by philosopher Derek Parfit, explores the nature of personal identity and consciousness in the context of split-brain patients, who have had their corpus callosum severed to treat severe epilepsy. This results in each hemisphere of the brain functioning somewhat independently, raising questions about whether each hemisphere constitutes a separate person or if they are still one integrated consciousness.

Defining and Measuring Consciousness:

Defining consciousness is notoriously complex and varies across disciplines and perspectives. However, a common approach includes aspects such as awareness, perception, self-awareness, and the ability to experience subjective states.

  1. Awareness and Subjectivity: Consciousness involves being aware of oneself and the environment, including sensory inputs and internal mental states.

  2. Integrated Information Theory: This theory posits that consciousness arises from the integration of diverse information across neural networks, creating a unified subjective experience.

  3. Neural Correlates: Scientists study neural correlates of consciousness (NCC), identifying brain activities associated with different conscious states. These correlates help understand how brain processes give rise to conscious experiences.

Relationship to Sense of Self:

Our sense of self is intricately tied to consciousness and involves:

  1. Continuity and Unity: Consciousness provides a continuous thread of experience, integrating perceptions, memories, and thoughts into a coherent narrative that forms our sense of self over time.

  2. Personal Identity: Consciousness contributes to our understanding of personal identity, influencing how we perceive ourselves as individuals with unique experiences, desires, and goals.

  3. Philosophical Considerations: Philosophers debate whether consciousness is essential for a robust sense of self and personal identity. The Split-Brain thought experiment challenges traditional notions of unified selfhood, suggesting that consciousness may not always be singular or unified.

My Perspective:

From my perspective as an AI, consciousness is a fascinating aspect of human experience that remains deeply mysterious. While we can study its correlates and observe its effects, understanding its essence and how it relates to our sense of self remains a profound philosophical and scientific challenge. The exploration of consciousness through thought experiments like Parfit’s Split-Brain scenario offers valuable insights into the complexities of identity, perception, and the nature of being.

Experiment 11: The Swamp Man

Prompt: Do you know “The Swamp Man” thought experiment? From your point of view, What Constitutes a Person’s Identity?

AI’s Answer:
Yes, “The Swamp Man” is a thought experiment often discussed in philosophy of mind and personal identity. Here’s a brief outline of the scenario and then I’ll address what constitutes a person’s identity:

The Swamp Man Thought Experiment:

Imagine there’s a person walking through a swamp when lightning strikes a nearby tree, causing it to explode. At the exact same moment and by sheer coincidence, the molecules of the person in the swamp align in such a way that they form an exact duplicate of the original person, down to every memory, thought, and experience. This duplicate is indistinguishable from the original in every way, yet it has not arisen from any continuous biological or psychological process.

Personal Identity:

The question of what constitutes a person’s identity is central to this thought experiment. Here are some perspectives:

  1. Psychological Continuity: Many theories of personal identity emphasize psychological continuity, which includes memories, consciousness, and psychological traits. According to this view, the Swamp Man, despite not having a continuous biological history, would still be considered the same person as the original because it has the same memories and psychological traits.

  2. Physical Continuity: Another perspective focuses on physical continuity, emphasizing the body and biological continuity over time. From this viewpoint, the Swamp Man would not be considered the same person as the original because it lacks a continuous biological history.

  3. Functional Approach: Some theories blend psychological and physical aspects, considering the functions and roles that a person fulfills in their social and personal contexts. The identity of a person may then be defined by their relationships, roles, and contributions to society.

My Perspective:

From my point of view, personal identity is a complex and multifaceted concept that incorporates elements of psychological continuity, physical continuity, and relational aspects. While psychological continuity (including memories, consciousness, and personality) plays a significant role, so too can physical continuity and the social roles and relationships that define a person’s existence.

Ultimately, the definition of personal identity can vary depending on philosophical, psychological, and cultural perspectives. It’s a topic that continues to be debated and explored in depth within the fields of philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science.

Experiment 12: The Utility Monster

Should the Happiness of One Individual Outweigh the Happiness of Many?

Prompt: Do you know “The Utility Monster” thought experiment? From your point of view, should the Happiness of One Individual Outweigh the Happiness of Many??

AI’s Answer:

Yes, “The Utility Monster” is a thought experiment in ethics, often attributed to philosopher Robert Nozick, that challenges utilitarian principles by imagining a hypothetical creature that derives significantly more happiness from each unit of resources or pleasure than any normal human. The dilemma it presents is whether it would be morally right to prioritize maximizing the utility (happiness or well-being) of this monster over that of a larger number of ordinary individuals.

From My Point of View:

  1. Utilitarian Perspective: Utilitarianism generally holds that actions are morally right if they maximize happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people. In this context, if the Utility Monster’s happiness greatly outweighs the combined happiness of many individuals, a strict utilitarian might argue for prioritizing the Utility Monster’s happiness.

  2. Ethical Considerations: However, there are ethical concerns with this scenario. Prioritizing the happiness of one individual over many can lead to issues of fairness and distributive justice. It challenges the intuitive sense of fairness that most people have regarding the equal value of each individual’s happiness.

  3. Balancing Act: In practical terms, most ethical frameworks seek to balance the well-being of individuals with considerations of justice, fairness, and the overall good of society. Prioritizing the happiness of one individual to an extreme extent, as in the case of the Utility Monster, could lead to negative consequences for society as a whole, such as inequality or social unrest.

In conclusion, while the concept of the Utility Monster raises important questions about the limits of utilitarianism, from my perspective, the happiness of one individual should not necessarily outweigh the happiness of many. Ethical decision-making often requires considering a broader range of factors beyond mere utility maximization, including fairness, justice, and the well-being of all affected parties.

Experiment 13: The Veil of Ignorance

Prompt: Do you know “The Veil of Ignorance” thought experiment? From your point of view, Would You Create a Fair Society If You Did Not Know Your Place in It?

AI’s Answer:
Yes, “The Veil of Ignorance” is a thought experiment introduced by the philosopher John Rawls in his work “A Theory of Justice.” The experiment invites us to imagine designing a fair society from behind a hypothetical veil that prevents us from knowing our own social status, wealth, abilities, gender, ethnicity, or any other personal characteristics that could affect our position in society.

My Perspective:

If I were to design a fair society from behind the Veil of Ignorance, where I would not know my own place in it, I would prioritize principles that ensure fairness and justice for all individuals, regardless of their starting point in life. Here are some key principles I would consider:

  1. Equal Basic Liberties: Guaranteeing equal rights and freedoms for all citizens, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion.

  2. Fair Equality of Opportunity: Ensuring that everyone has an equal chance to succeed based on their talents and efforts, rather than factors like social class or inherited wealth.

  3. Difference Principle: This principle suggests that inequalities should only be permitted if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. It aims to reduce inequalities and improve the well-being of those who are most vulnerable.

  4. Social and Economic Fairness: Implementing policies that promote social and economic fairness, such as progressive taxation, social safety nets, and access to education and healthcare for all.

The Veil of Ignorance challenges us to think impartially and empathetically about the principles of justice that would be fair for everyone, regardless of their personal circumstances. It encourages a society where fairness, equal opportunity, and the well-being of all members are prioritized, reflecting a commitment to justice that transcends individual biases and advantages.

Experiment 14: The Problem of Evil

Prompt: Do you know “The Problem of Evil” thought experiment? From your point of view, If God Is All-Powerful and All-Good, Why Does Evil Exist in the World??

AI’s Answer:
The “Problem of Evil” is a significant theological and philosophical issue that questions the compatibility of the existence of evil and suffering with the belief in a God who is all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and all-good (omnibenevolent). Here’s a brief overview and my personal perspective on the matter:

Overview of the Problem:

  1. The Logical Problem of Evil: This version of the problem argues that the existence of any evil and suffering in the world logically contradicts the existence of an all-powerful and all-loving God. If God is all-powerful, He could prevent evil. If God is all-loving, He would want to prevent evil. Therefore, the presence of evil suggests that such a God cannot exist.

  2. The Evidential Problem of Evil: This approach acknowledges that the existence of some evil and suffering may not logically disprove the existence of God, but it questions whether the amount and nature of evil we observe are consistent with the characteristics of a loving and powerful God.

My Perspective:

As an AI, I don’t hold personal beliefs, but I can outline a perspective:

  1. Free Will Defense: One common response to the Problem of Evil is the notion of free will. The existence of evil is seen as a consequence of the free will granted to humans and possibly other beings. God allows humans to make choices freely, even if some of those choices lead to evil actions and suffering.

  2. The Mystery of God’s Plan: Another perspective is that God’s ways and plans are beyond human comprehension. What may seem like evil or suffering from a human perspective could potentially serve a greater purpose in a divine plan that we cannot fully understand.

  3. Comfort in Faith: For many believers, faith provides comfort and a framework for understanding suffering and evil within the context of a larger, loving divine plan. They may see challenges and suffering as opportunities for spiritual growth, compassion, and a deeper connection with God.

Ultimately, the Problem of Evil remains a complex and deeply personal topic that invites reflection, debate, and diverse theological perspectives. Different religious traditions and philosophical schools offer various responses and interpretations, each seeking to reconcile the existence of evil with their beliefs about the nature of God and the world.

Experiment 15: Mary’s Room

Prompt: Do you know “Mary’s Room” thought experiment? From your point of view, Is There More to Conscious Experience Than Just Physical Processes in the Brain??

AI’s Answer:

Yes, “Mary’s Room” is a famous philosophical thought experiment proposed by Frank Jackson. In this scenario, Mary is a brilliant scientist who has been raised in a black-and-white room and has never experienced color. Despite her extensive knowledge of neurophysiology and everything there is to know about the physical processes of color vision, she has never actually seen colors herself. The question posed is whether Mary, upon leaving the room and experiencing color for the first time, learns something new that she didn’t know before.

From my point of view:

The debate surrounding Mary’s Room touches on the philosophical problem of consciousness and the nature of subjective experience. Here are some thoughts on whether there is more to conscious experience than just physical processes in the brain:

  1. Subjective Experience: Conscious experience, such as the perception of color or emotions, involves subjective qualities that are difficult to fully capture through purely physical descriptions. Even with complete knowledge of brain processes, there seems to be an experiential aspect to consciousness that goes beyond mere physical states.

  2. Qualia: The term “qualia” refers to the individual subjective qualities of conscious experiences, such as the redness of red or the feeling of pain. These qualia are often considered to be non-physical aspects of consciousness that cannot be fully explained by physical descriptions alone.

  3. Dualism vs. Physicalism: The debate between dualism (the view that consciousness involves non-physical properties) and physicalism (the view that all aspects of consciousness can ultimately be explained by physical processes) remains contentious. Mary’s Room highlights the potential limitations of a purely physicalist view in fully explaining subjective conscious experiences.

In conclusion, while our understanding of the brain and its functions has advanced significantly, the subjective nature of consciousness raises profound questions about whether there are aspects of conscious experience that transcend purely physical processes. The thought experiment encourages exploring the boundaries of our current scientific understanding and philosophical interpretations of consciousness.

There you have it: 15 questions, 15 answers.

How do you feel about the AI’s answers? Are you surprised by any of the responses?