A quiz: Are you a materialist or idealist?

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Post by CHARLEY_BIGTIME » Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:05 am

Interesting Ian wrote:
In short you're talking out of your fucking arsehole.


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.

Moron.
Stimpson J. Cat wrote:
As usual, when you run out of meaningless platitudes and circular arguments, and your claims are shown unambiguously to be false, you result to personal attacks and insults.

Interesting Ian wrote:
Otherwise desist repeating Mr Stupid's comments.
Make me.

User avatar
wollery
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Liverpool

Post by wollery » Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:57 pm

Umm, Ian?

Hello.

I'm waiting.

You could start a new thread if you prefer not to derail this one.
It's not easy being a dolphin!

User avatar
Pólux
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:02 pm

Post by Pólux » Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:39 pm

A side remark - and I'm sorry if this was pointed out already...
To those who have answered that the rainbow is "in the sky", even if you mean that's where it appears to be, it is not always the case. You can see it in front of you or even below, when you're facing a waterfall.

User avatar
wollery
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Liverpool

Post by wollery » Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:38 pm

Pólux wrote:A side remark - and I'm sorry if this was pointed out already...
To those who have answered that the rainbow is "in the sky", even if you mean that's where it appears to be, it is not always the case. You can see it in front of you or even below, when you're facing a waterfall.
Which is why the question, or at least the proffered answers are flawed. But you try telling that to Interesting Ian. :roll:
It's not easy being a dolphin!

User avatar
Pólux
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:02 pm

Post by Pólux » Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:39 pm

<img src="http://www.geocities.com/gbuela/Iguazu2/Ar014.jpg">

Here's an example of a non-sky rainbow, caught at Iguazu falls last year.

User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7987
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel » Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:17 am

Mrs. Nigel and I went to Cumberland Falls in southern Kentucky last year for our anniversary. (It's not far from the Cumberland Gap where Virginia meets Kentucky and Tennessee.) The falls boasts one of the few "moonbows" in the world. On a full moon night, the moonlight shines through the mist just right and creates a rainbow - at night. I believe the signs there said the only other place in the world where that happens is in Australia. While we didn't see it ourselves, the park lodge had photos, and it was pretty stunning.
Cumberland Falls State Resort
Cumberland Falls State Resort is located in the Daniel Boone National Forest. Known as the "Niagara of the South," the waterfall forms a 125-foot wide curtain that plunges 60 feet into the boulder-strewn gorge below. The mist of Cumberland Falls creates the magic of the moonbow, only visible on a clear night during a full moon. This unique phenomenon appears nowhere else in the Western Hemisphere.

edit to add info and link
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/parks/cumbfal2.htm
If you can't laugh, what good are you?

I thought I won't submit this...but who cares...let it roll. -Pillory

CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Post by CHARLEY_BIGTIME » Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:33 am

Nigel wrote: I believe the signs there said the only other place in the world where that happens is in Australia.
Sorry bro. Must refute that. I've seen one at Victoria falls in Zimbabwe.
Only a handful of places in the world have moonbows. One is at Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe, Africa. Under certain conditions, a lunar rainbow also can be seen at Yosemite Falls in California, and at Middle Falls on the Genesee River in New York state.
http://parks.ky.gov/news/story10.htm

I must admit, they are quite pleasing on the eye.

Image

User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7987
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel » Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:39 am

CHARLEY_BIGTIME wrote:
Nigel wrote: I believe the signs there said the only other place in the world where that happens is in Australia.
Sorry bro. Must refute that. I've seen one at Victoria falls in Zimbabwe.
Only a handful of places in the world have moonbows. One is at Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe, Africa. Under certain conditions, a lunar rainbow also can be seen at Yosemite Falls in California, and at Middle Falls on the Genesee River in New York state.
http://parks.ky.gov/news/story10.htm

I must admit, they are quite pleasing on the eye.

Image
I accept refutation. I blame faulty memory. :D
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
Pólux
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:02 pm

Post by Pólux » Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:52 am

Nigel wrote:Mrs. Nigel and I went to Cumberland Falls in southern Kentucky last year for our anniversary. (It's not far from the Cumberland Gap where Virginia meets Kentucky and Tennessee.) The falls boasts one of the few "moonbows" in the world. On a full moon night, the moonlight shines through the mist just right and creates a rainbow - at night. I believe the signs there said the only other place in the world where that happens is in Australia. While we didn't see it ourselves, the park lodge had photos, and it was pretty stunning.
Cumberland Falls State Resort
Cumberland Falls State Resort is located in the Daniel Boone National Forest. Known as the "Niagara of the South," the waterfall forms a 125-foot wide curtain that plunges 60 feet into the boulder-strewn gorge below. The mist of Cumberland Falls creates the magic of the moonbow, only visible on a clear night during a full moon. This unique phenomenon appears nowhere else in the Western Hemisphere.
That must be a spectacular experience. But it's not the only place in the WH that it appears. It also appears at Iguazú (or Iguaçu), the beautiful subtropical falls at the Argentina/Brazil border. You can go on full moon nights - unfortunately I didn't.

(Edited fo fix the quoting)

User avatar
Pólux
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:02 pm

Post by Pólux » Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:00 am

Nigel wrote: I accept refutation. I blame faulty memory. :D
Well, it seems to me it's not about bad memory. You quoted an ad from a resort claiming it was the only moonbow in the Americas, and you have probably seen that sign when you were there... Anything that is 'unique' is cool and attracts the bucks. This kind of lies (and others) are to be expected in publicity.

User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7987
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel » Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:16 am

Pólux wrote:
Nigel wrote: I accept refutation. I blame faulty memory. :D
Well, it seems to me it's not about bad memory. You quoted an ad from a resort claiming it was the only moonbow in the Americas, and you have probably seen that sign when you were there... Anything that is 'unique' is cool and attracts the bucks. This kind of lies (and others) are to be expected in publicity.
Granted, and thanks. It certainly was the first time I'd ever heard of the phenomenon. But my bad memory was I thought the sign had said Australia, and Charley was right - the sign had said Victoria Falls.
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 » Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:28 am

wollery wrote:
Pólux wrote:A side remark - and I'm sorry if this was pointed out already...
To those who have answered that the rainbow is "in the sky", even if you mean that's where it appears to be, it is not always the case. You can see it in front of you or even below, when you're facing a waterfall.
Which is why the question, or at least the proffered answers are flawed. But you try telling that to Interesting Ian. :roll:
I refuse to converse with fucking arseholes.

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

Post by Interesting Ian » Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:30 am

Lord Emsworth wrote:
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?
Yes, but only just to say.

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

Post by Interesting Ian » Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:33 am

wollery wrote:
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.
There is no physical explanation of why they smell. There is no physical explanation of why we have any peceptual experiences (qualia) at all. Nor could there ever be.

Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object.

Yahweh
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:05 pm

Post by Yahweh » Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:46 am

Interesting Ian wrote:Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object.
Because the object is reflecting light with a wavelength in the red spectrum.

That was easy.
Jesus, Buffy! [url=http://www.fstdt.com]Fundies Say the Darndest Things![/url]

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

Post by Interesting Ian » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:02 am

Yahweh wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object.
Because the object is reflecting light with a wavelength in the red spectrum.
So what? Spell out what entails me to experience redness rather than greenness.

The Central Scrutinizer
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:50 pm
Location: USA

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

Post by The Central Scrutinizer » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:04 am

Interesting Ian wrote:11 questions. Just choose a, b, c or d for each one. I won't tell you how to score at this juncture. But if you tell me your answers I'll inform you as to whether you fall under being a:

Materialist,

Naturalist,

Semi- idealist or,

Idealist (philosophical idealist that is).


As a matter of interest, the score I got put me as a semi-idealist; but only just. Only failed to be categorised as an idealist by 1 point.


The quiz is from the book Philosophy in Practice by Adam Morton.

(1) Telepathy would occur when one person could receive another person's thoughts, without speech or electronics. On present evidence is telepathy (a) impossible, (b.) unlikely, (c) possible, or (d) actual?

(2) Suppose that there were firm evidence of telepathy. Would this mean that physics ought to be (a) abandoned, (b) supplemented with a very different discipline, (c) expanded, (d) left as it is?

(3) Suppose there were statistical evidence that the positions of the planets influence human fate. Would this be because of (a) an accident, (b) unknown causal processes, (c) something beyond our understanding, or (d) the truth of astrology?

(4) That human beings can survive death is (a) likely, (b) possible, (c) unlikely, (d) impossible.

(5) That today's physics may someday be seen as wildly inaccurate myth is (a) impossible, (b) unlikely, (c) possible, (d) probable.

(6) Where are rainbows: (a) in the sky, (b) in people's minds, (c) in raindrops, (d) nowhere?

(7) Numbers are (a) fictions, (b) marks on paper, (c) ideas in our minds, (d) objects independent of us.

(8) Compare democracy (in politics) and energy (in science): (a) energy and democracy are both just concepts we use to describe our experiences; (b) both energy and democracy are dubious concepts; (c) energy is a useful concept and democracy a dubious one; (d) energy is real and democracy is just an idea.

(9) A factor in many diseases is 'stress', which in part depends on a person's experiences and emotions. The suggestion that stress might one day be understood in purely physical terms is (a) likely, (b) possible, (c) improbable, (d) impossible.

(10) Brain chemistry seems to be connected with some severe mental disorders. The possibility that a person's personality might be completely explicable in terms of their brain chemistry is (a) crazy, (b) far-fetched, (c) likely, (d) probable.

(11) People who believe that they are biological organisms governed by biological principles are likely to treat other people in a way that is (a) more understanding than, (b) different from, (c) the same as, (d) less understanding than those who believe that humans are exceptions to the principles governing other animals behaviour.
Is there a "Who gives a fuck" catagory? It's all nothing more than a parlor game. Ultimately meaningless.

User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7987
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:14 am

Interesting Ian wrote:
Yahweh wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object.
Because the object is reflecting light with a wavelength in the red spectrum.
So what? Spell out what entails me to experience redness rather than greenness.
Why should anyone do that, Ian? I think even I could do that, but certainly not to your satisfaction, because I know you well enough by now to guess with confidence you'd reject it. Either because I'd be wrong on some minor point, or you'd simply call me an arsehole and refuse to listen. Let some poor sucker try, I won't fall for your game again. I did that once already. But as for an explanation, simply look at the anatomy of the eye and the wavelengths that are bounced from an object into it.

But go ahead and give us a discourse on the philosophical reasons why we see nothing.
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 » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:22 am

Nigel wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:
Yahweh wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object.
Because the object is reflecting light with a wavelength in the red spectrum.
So what? Spell out what entails me to experience redness rather than greenness.
Why should anyone do that, Ian? I think even I could do that, but certainly not to your satisfaction, because I know you well enough by now to guess with confidence you'd reject it. Either because I'd be wrong on some minor point, or you'd simply call me an arsehole and refuse to listen. Let some poor sucker try, I won't fall for your game again. I did that once already. But as for an explanation, simply look at the anatomy of the eye and the wavelengths that are bounced from an object into it.

But go ahead and give us a discourse on the philosophical reasons why we see nothing.
You have to specify why being in a particular brain state leads to the experience of redness rather than greenness. What physical law is involved here? What physical theory leads us to understand why we experience redness rather than greenness?

I submit that one cannot be supplied. All we can do is note that certain brain states are correlated to certain experiences. You can claim that these brain states generate these experiences. But then we would have no justification for calling the experiences themselves physical.

Thus this would be a rejection of materialism and an endorsement of epiphenomenalism.

CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Post by CHARLEY_BIGTIME » Wed Jul 14, 2004 3:42 am

Interesting Ian wrote:
wollery wrote:
Pólux wrote:A side remark - and I'm sorry if this was pointed out already...
To those who have answered that the rainbow is "in the sky", even if you mean that's where it appears to be, it is not always the case. You can see it in front of you or even below, when you're facing a waterfall.
Which is why the question, or at least the proffered answers are flawed. But you try telling that to Interesting Ian. :roll:
I refuse to converse with fucking arseholes.
Stimpson J. Cat wrote:
As usual, when you run out of meaningless platitudes and circular arguments, and your claims are shown unambiguously to be false, you result to personal attacks and insults.