A quiz: Are you a materialist or idealist?

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
User avatar
wollery
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Liverpool

Post by wollery »

A materialist just to say. Now to make some comments on your comments.

Me, a materialist? Who would have thought that!

Needless nitpicking.

Pointing out obvious flaws and possible points of confusion. Or do you believe this test to be free of such things?

How come peoples' personalities correspond so closely to their star sign then?

They don't. That's a myth put about by astrologers and perpetuated by credulous morons. Horoscopes are specifically vague and the character traits they refer to can be identified with by anybody who wants to believe that their fate is out of their own control.

Again needless nitpicking.

See above.

Why not myth? It seems likely to me. Is Aristotelian physics myth?

Most certainly not. Apart from the fact that myths are made up stories, Aristotle was one of the first scientists and applied the scientific method to the world around him. His conclusion were flawed, but he advanced knowledge and his ideas and methods formed the basis of mediaeval Arabic science, which was far more advanced than mediaeval Western science and many of its results are still used today.

I fail to see how.

Probably because you don't understand the physics involved

Ummm . .that's the scientific story.

Easily demonstrable in a laboratory, so what's your problem with that?

And the question is where rainbows are.
What do you mean? Would you say all physical objects exist in a unique place for each observer?

Rainbows are produced by the prismatic effect of raindrops on sunlight. As light passes into a drop it is refracted, making the different wavelengths travel along slightly different paths. The light is then doubly internally reflected and passes back out of the drop in almost the same direction it entered, being further refracted as it does so. The rainbow that you perceive is constructed of little bits of light from millions of raindrops, the angle between the observer, each raindrop and the Sun being the critical factor in which colour is perceived at any point. It is this critical angle which means that every observer sees the rainbow in a different physical position. Normal physical objects (assuming that they are static) may be assigned a three dimensional reference position which is the same for all observers.

In what way is the question flawed. Seems perfectly fine to me. What is your problem with it??

Try to wrap your head around the answer I gave above and you might understand

It is precisely about maths. But I have already witnessed your complete stupidity in this subject area, so it doesn't surprise me you're unable to understand this. BTW, answer D is incompatible with materialism.

So what do you believe numbers to be? Do you have two eyes? How do you know? Would you still have two eyes if you had never counted them? What if you'd never learned the concept of numbers, would you still have two eyes then? Of course you would, even if you had no idea of the concept of numbers it wouldn't alter the facts. In that sense numbers are totally independent of us, in a material sense! However, negative numbers, complex numbers, calculus, these are mathematical concepts which would not exist without a mind to think of them.

In response to your claim of my complete stupidity in this subject area I'll just note that you've demonstrated many times your lack of any depth of knowledge on matters of maths and physics, subjects in which you have little or no training or qualifications. I have been studying maths and science for almost my entire life and will soon have a PhD in Astrophysics.


{sighs} It depends on what you mean by democracy doesn't it??

Of course, as with many things in life. But since the word means, literally, rule by the people, and in the original sense meant that all citizens had an equal say in all matters of state it is easy to see that it has never been practised in the way it was intended.

You misunderstand the question. It is whether stress, a particular conscious experience, can be understood in purely physical terms. How can structure and function imply any particular conscious state? You're an idiot.

I understand it perfectly.

When faced with any number of situations the body responds by producing adrenalin which increases heart rate and muscle efficiency, increasing blood flow to certain areas of the body which might be required for fight or flight responses, releasing extra quantities of various neurochemicals which heighten sensory accuity and hone attention. This is what we know as stress, and it's a perfectly natural bodily response, and highly useful in certain situations. In the long term it's bad for you, the heart suffers from beating too fast for extended periods, adrenalin increases the amount of cholesterol laid down in the arteries, and the increases in muscle tension and brain function leave the body drained.

As noted in the first line of your reply I am a materialist (although from the description earlier in the thread I would have thought I was a naturalist, but given the questions I hold little stock in the accuracy of the determinations). As such I believe that we are physical beings and that our brain structure and chemistry play a large part in regulating normal function of our synaptic processes. It is these synaptic processes which are our thought patterns and these in turn determine our personality. I know that you are an idealist and disagree with that. It is your prerogative to do so, but don't tell me I'm an idiot for having a different opinion from you, only an arrogant fool would believe that having a different opinion from them implied idiocy.
It's not easy being a dolphin!
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

wollery wrote:A materialist just to say. Now to make some comments on your comments.

Me, a materialist? Who would have thought that!
Yeah, it is quite evident you are intellectually deficient. I could tell that when you failed to understand my point in that mathematical question on the jref. You kept repeating stuff that I grasped the first time it was told to me.


Needless nitpicking.

Pointing out obvious flaws and possible points of confusion.


Anyone who is confused by such questions will have immense difficulty communicating with people in everyday conversations.


How come peoples' personalities correspond so closely to their star sign then?

They don't.



How do you know??


That's a myth put about by astrologers and perpetuated by credulous morons.


I'm talking about my personel experience.


Horoscopes are specifically vague and the character traits they refer to can be identified with by anybody who wants to believe that their fate is out of their own control.


I wasn't referring to horoscopes.


Again needless nitpicking.

See above.



Why? Nothing you say above alters the fact that it is needless nitpicking.


Why not myth? It seems likely to me. Is Aristotelian physics myth?

Most certainly not. Apart from the fact that myths are made up stories,



What makes you think science is not a made up story?


I fail to see how.

Probably because you don't understand the physics involved

Ummm . .that's the scientific story.

Easily demonstrable in a laboratory, so what's your problem with that?



My problem is that I am not interested in scientific stories. Numerous theories employing radically differing entities can be dreamt up to explain a particular macroscopic state of affairs. If you're supposing scientific realism I say that you need to demonstrate its truth, not just presume it.


And the question is where rainbows are.
What do you mean? Would you say all physical objects exist in a unique place for each observer?

Rainbows are produced by the prismatic effect of raindrops on sunlight.

snipped



I told you. I'm not interested in your scientific stories.

In what way is the question flawed. Seems perfectly fine to me. What is your problem with it??

Try to wrap your head around the answer I gave above and you might understand


The fact that rainbows are seen at differing positions depending on ones perspective is interesting, but has no consequence for the answer one should choose. What about the colours constituting the rainbow. Do they exist out there in the real world or not? Giving an outline of the scientific story doesn't answer this question.


It is precisely about maths. But I have already witnessed your complete stupidity in this subject area, so it doesn't surprise me you're unable to understand this. BTW, answer D is incompatible with materialism.

So what do you believe numbers to be? Do you have two eyes? How do you know? Would you still have two eyes if you had never counted them? What if you'd never learned the concept of numbers, would you still have two eyes then? Of course you would, even if you had no idea of the concept of numbers it wouldn't alter the facts. In that sense numbers are totally independent of us, in a material sense! However, negative numbers, complex numbers, calculus, these are mathematical concepts which would not exist without a mind to think of them.



Why wouldn't they??



In response to your claim of my complete stupidity in this subject area I'll just note that you've demonstrated many times your lack of any depth of knowledge on matters of maths and physics, subjects in which you have little or no training or qualifications.


They've the only 2 qualifications I managed to get at school. An A in maths, and a B in physics ("o" levels). They were the only 2 subjects I was any good at. All tests I do consistently show my numerical ability to be extraordinary high.

In short you're talking out of your fucking arsehole.


I have been studying maths and science for almost my entire life and will soon have a PhD in Astrophysics.


You have already demonstrated your incredible stupidity in maths. I couldn't give a flying fuck how many years you've been studying it for. Education doesn't make you any less of a thick fuck.
{sighs} It depends on what you mean by democracy doesn't it??

Of course, as with many things in life. But since the word means, literally, rule by the people, and in the original sense meant that all citizens had an equal say in all matters of state it is easy to see that it has never been practised in the way it was intended.



It doesn't matter what the word literally means.


You misunderstand the question. It is whether stress, a particular conscious experience, can be understood in purely physical terms. How can structure and function imply any particular conscious state? You're an idiot.

I understand it perfectly.

When faced with any number of situations the body responds by producing adrenalin which increases heart rate and muscle efficiency, increasing blood flow to certain areas of the body which might be required for fight or flight responses, releasing extra quantities of various neurochemicals which heighten sensory accuity and hone attention. This is what we know as stress,



The dictionary says that you're a liar. It defines stress as:

"A mentally or emotionally disruptive or upsetting condition occurring in response to adverse external influences and capable of affecting physical health, usually characterized by increased heart rate, a rise in blood pressure, muscular tension, irritability, and depression".

It seems that you're referring to the physical correlates of stress rather than stress itself.

Moron.


As noted in the first line of your reply I am a materialist (although from the description earlier in the thread I would have thought I was a naturalist, but given the questions I hold little stock in the accuracy of the determinations). As such I believe that we are physical beings and that our brain structure and chemistry play a large part in regulating normal function of our synaptic processes. It is these synaptic processes which are our thought patterns and these in turn determine our personality. I know that you are an idealist and disagree with that. It is your prerogative to do so, but don't tell me I'm an idiot for having a different opinion from you,


Materialism is unintelligible. I've explained this many times. If you cannot understand, then I do not regard you as being particularly intelligent.


only an arrogant fool would believe that having a different opinion from them implied idiocy.


Show how materialism is possible, then I'll change my mind.
User avatar
wollery
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Liverpool

Post by wollery »

Ian, you are stunningly rude and arrogant. You have decided on a particular view that makes sense to you and refuse to believe any other way is possible. Further you seem to think that your brain is far superior to anyone else and that if they disagree with you they are idiots.

I don't say that I'm right, but based on the balance of all the evidence I've seen I feel that materialism is probably the correct assessment. I'm open to being convinced otherwise. You seem to have totally closed your mind to anything other than you own personal worldview and become extremely offensive when people argue against it.

Why do you bother to ask questions or start discussions? It is clear that you already believe that you know all the answers. If you aren't willing to discuss other points of view then why the hell do you waste everyones time?

BTW with regards to the infinite string argument we had over at JREF, one of the main reasons I stopped posting was that I was no longer sure that my position was correct. As I said, I'm open to being convinced that I'm wrong. Are you?
It's not easy being a dolphin!
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

wollery wrote:Ian, you are stunningly rude and arrogant. You have decided on a particular view that makes sense to you and refuse to believe any other way is possible. Further you seem to think that your brain is far superior to anyone else and that if they disagree with you they are idiots.

I don't say that I'm right, but based on the balance of all the evidence I've seen I feel that materialism is probably the correct assessment. I'm open to being convinced otherwise. You seem to have totally closed your mind to anything other than you own personal worldview and become extremely offensive when people argue against it.

Why do you bother to ask questions or start discussions? It is clear that you already believe that you know all the answers. If you aren't willing to discuss other points of view then why the hell do you waste everyones time?

BTW with regards to the infinite string argument we had over at JREF, one of the main reasons I stopped posting was that I was no longer sure that my position was correct. As I said, I'm open to being convinced that I'm wrong. Are you?
I am firmly convinced that either materialists do not understand the implications of their own position, or they are off their fucking rocker.

When you get idiots like Stimpson J Cat claiming that the smells of farts do not exist, you know they are beyond all reason. They are fucking insane.
Jeff
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:01 pm

Post by Jeff »

Psirorny, was all it was.
Pull my finger.
User avatar
Stimpson J. Cat
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 8:51 pm
Location: Eindhoven

Post by Stimpson J. Cat »

When you get idiots like Stimpson J Cat claiming that the smells of farts do not exist, you know they are beyond all reason. They are fucking insane.
Oh yeah? Well... You're a big poopy-head, so there! :roll:


Dr. Stupid
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry.
User avatar
wollery
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Liverpool

Post by wollery »

Interesting Ian wrote:I am firmly convinced that either materialists do not understand the implications of their own position, or they are off their fucking rocker.

When you get idiots like Stimpson J Cat claiming that the smells of farts do not exist, you know they are beyond all reason. They are fucking insane.
What implications are those? And before you get offensive and tell me I'm a fucking idiot for not knowing, I'm genuinely interested to hear your views.

Oh yeah, farts do have a smell, I could go into the physical explanation of why they smell, but since you discard all science out of hand I don't see that there's much point.
It's not easy being a dolphin!
jr
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:24 pm

Post by jr »

Interesting Ian wrote:The dictionary says that you're a liar. It defines stress as:

"A mentally or emotionally disruptive or upsetting condition occurring in response to adverse external influences and capable of affecting physical health, usually characterized by increased heart rate, a rise in blood pressure, muscular tension, irritability, and depression".
Interesting Ian also wrote:It doesn't matter what the word literally means.
Dictionaries are fine when they agree with you then Ian? Seems to be how you approach other peoples opinions in general.
User avatar
wollery
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Liverpool

Post by wollery »

Ian,
wollery wrote: What implications are those? And before you get offensive and tell me I'm a fucking idiot for not knowing, I'm genuinely interested to hear your views.
Forget it, I've just read your refutation of materialism over at JREF.

So let me get this straight, you say that conciousness cannot be the product of material interactions, and since we are concious materialism must be wrong. Is that what you are saying?
It's not easy being a dolphin!
User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7987
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

wollery, I gave up on Ian after my first debate with him when he tried to convince me that lifting my arm is a psychokenetic action. I offered him dictionary definitions (as in this thread), and he reacted the same way.

Ian's funny though.
If you can't laugh, what good are you?

I thought I won't submit this...but who cares...let it roll. -Pillory
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

wollery wrote:Ian,
wollery wrote: What implications are those? And before you get offensive and tell me I'm a fucking idiot for not knowing, I'm genuinely interested to hear your views.
Forget it, I've just read your refutation of materialism over at JREF.

So let me get this straight, you say that conciousness cannot be the product of material interactions, and since we are concious materialism must be wrong. Is that what you are saying?
Either you want me to explain or you don't. I do not know what you mean by "product".

It would be much simpler if I explained.
Mooseboy
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:06 pm
Location: Central Illinois

Post by Mooseboy »

Interesting Ian wrote:
Mooseboy wrote:Thanks Ian, a naturalist huh?

Guess I'll have to go look that up.

The true answer is that I am a JOKE!(FRom Master ian himself this very day)
Only if you are numerically identical to Dancing David. Are you?
My ISP is equivalent!

I am close to that apology as you have refrained from the usual name calling and swearing. Keep up the rational debate and I will say that you are not a bully! :)

PS Oh darn, I just read some more of the thread!
If you are willing to admit that anybody who holds any position without consideration is fucking stupid, then I would say that you are an equal oportunity bigot and therefore not a bully.

For shame Ian, is this the product of your fine mind? I have seen much better from you! It seems that you mock yourself in this response.
Interesting Ian wrote: No! Anyone who is a materialist is fucking stupid.
Last edited by Mooseboy on Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mooseboy
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:06 pm
Location: Central Illinois

Post by Mooseboy »

Interesting Ian wrote: I am firmly convinced that either materialists do not understand the implications of their own position, or they are off their fucking rocker.

When you get idiots like Stimpson J Cat claiming that the smells of farts do not exist, you know they are beyond all reason. They are fucking insane.
Some of us natural materialists believe that the smell of the fart is dependant upon the perception of the reciever of the fart's odor. The smell is the sensation of the odor. So no perciever, no smell.

Just as if a tree falls in the forest it makes a noise if there is no one to hear a sound. Sound is a sensation, noise is the pressure wave in the atmosphere.

I concede however that we are limited to our senses for knowledge and perception.
User avatar
wollery
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Liverpool

Post by wollery »

Interesting Ian wrote: Either you want me to explain or you don't. I do not know what you mean by "product".

It would be much simpler if I explained.
Please, go ahead and explain it.
It's not easy being a dolphin!
LostAngeles
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:44 pm
Location: L.A., way too close to the Scientology Center

Post by LostAngeles »

Actually, I'm curious as to the quiz's definitions of "materialist", "naturalist", and "idealist" are.

Ian, would you mind transcibing it for us, or linking to where I could read it, please?
Yahweh
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:05 pm

Re: A quiz: Are you a materialist or idealist?

Post by Yahweh »

Interesting Ian wrote:How come peoples' personalities correspond so closely to their star sign then?
They dont correspond.

Just for fun, try these two experiments:

Put the personality type on the front of a card, and the star sign on the back of the card. Ask people to pick which personality most closely matches there own.

Observe the results and compare the star signs of the personality to the actual chooser.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that there isnt much more than predicted starsign to actual starsign doesnt register much higher than chance.
Jesus, Buffy! [url=http://www.fstdt.com]Fundies Say the Darndest Things![/url]
Lord Emsworth
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:17 am

Post by Lord Emsworth »

1 a
2 c
3 a-d (depends on how good the evidence is; go with the gist of the rest)
4 d
5 b
6 c
7 b
8 d
9 d
10 d
11 c

User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Lord Emsworth wrote:1 a
2 c
3 a-d (depends on how good the evidence is; go with the gist of the rest)
4 d
5 b
6 c
7 b
8 d
9 d
10 d
11 c

Hi, It would be more useful if you could give a definite answer to question 3. At the moment all I can say is you're either a naturalist, or just to say a materialist.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

LostAngeles wrote:Actually, I'm curious as to the quiz's definitions of "materialist", "naturalist", and "idealist" are.

Ian, would you mind transcibing it for us, or linking to where I could read it, please?
I think I gave definitions of materialist and naturalist earlier in the thread albeit in not great detail.

For a really easy explanation of what materialism is go here:
http://commhum.mccneb.edu/dweber/101%20 ... ialism.htm

For a really easy explanation of what idealism is go here:
http://commhum.mccneb.edu/dweber/101%20 ... ealism.htm
Lord Emsworth
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:17 am

Post by Lord Emsworth »

Interesting Ian wrote: Hi, It would be more useful if you could give a definite answer to question 3. At the moment all I can say is you're either a naturalist, or just to say a materialist.

OK, b) then.

Let me guess ... Naturalist?