It seems that many thinkers commit the naturalistic fallacy in thinking about human engineering and enhancement. That is, when thinking about human engineering (e.g., germline engineering) many have claimed that it is "unnatural" to pursue such options or that we "ought" not do such things because it would damage the human race. My question is this: if we take evolutionary theory seriously (with constant change, adaptation, etc.), why ought we not pursue human engineering, especially if larger issues of justice can be adjudicated?

In your response to the question on Twin-Earth, you said that descriptions can be used to fix reference. (E.g.: This colourless, odourless, thirst-quenching object is water.) But if I'm not wrong, Kripke in Naming and Necessity said that definite descriptions can't be used to fix the reference. He said reference fixing proceeds by an initial baptism. Where did I go wrong? My second question is about Kripke's and Putnam's essentialism. Is their essentialism limited to proper names and natural kind terms or does it include non-natural kind terms too? For example, in post-Kripke philosophy, do philosophers believe that terms like "game", "beauty", "chair" have essences? If these terms have essences, what are they?

Is it possible for one to possibly know what exists after death? As humans, with a mind that exists solely as physical matter (and a soul, if religion is counted), when we die, how is it possible for this purely physical mind to keep on functioning, and allow us to realize that we are dead? As well, if we have souls, how can an entity created purely of energy (or whatever you think a soul is made of) have senses and detect that it exists, or even think?

I've been told that your eyes only see what your mind imagines is there. So how do we know what is there and what it looks like? Do people see other people differently? But if all this is true and people saw what they thought then if they were a negative person then everything would go bad for them; in this sense, in a football game the negative person would see a dropped pass when a positive person would see a touch down. Hope you can answer. DJ

If someone was blind since birth, do they see objects/colors when they dream? What do they see when they dream?

Is it possible for one to be in love with the feeling of being in love, instead of loving the person you believe you're in love with?

It seems that philosophers have reduced philosophy to nothing more than theories of knowledge, and are asserting epistemologies that prevent anyone from philosophizing. I understand the power of doubt, and that we cannot describe morality in “indubitable” or absolute terms. But, speculation and wonder are what make philosophy interesting to me. Why won’t you construct philosophy from the basis of wonder? Is it so terrible to view your profession as art instead of science?

What is the difference between law and justice?

This one is mathematical, but seems to address philosophical issues regarding definition and the nature of mathematical truth. So: If, for any x, x^0 = 1, and, for any y, 0^y = 0, then what is the value of 0^0?

What do you believe to be the square root of -1? Is it a flaw in our complex math system? Is it really a non-existent and incomprehendable thing? Or are our brains simply too basic to understand this notion?