A quiz: Are you a materialist or idealist?

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Postby Interesting Ian » Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:12 pm

CHARLEY_BIGTIME wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote: I have absolutely no interest. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this present topic of discussion.


Why did you ask the question then?

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


I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??

I said the scientific story leading us to understand the physical processes in the brain has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with why I experience red when looking at a red object. How do you explain it from the perspective of materialism??

This question is not a scientific one. It cannot be answered by science. It is a question regarding metaphysics

Now try to get it through your dumbfuck skull of yours. The same goes for the rest of those who somehow are stupid enough to think it is a scientific question.

CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Postby CHARLEY_BIGTIME » Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:26 pm

Interesting Ian wrote:

I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??


But then you said.

Interesting Ian wrote: I have absolutely no interest. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this present topic of discussion.


So you're interested in an answer to a question but you have no interest in it? Riiigghhhhhhht.

Interesting Ian wrote:I said the scientific story leading us to understand the physical processes in the brain has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with why I experience red when looking at a red object. How do you explain it from the perspective of materialism??


Why should I explain something when you have already admitted that you are not interested in it. Or perhaps you are interested in my interest in this interesting subject. Is Yahweh interesting? I'm actually interested in the interests of interesting people. Perhaps you're not. That's interesting.


Interesting Ian wrote:Now try to get it through your dumbfuck skull of yours. The same goes for the rest of those who somehow are stupid enough to think it is a scientific question.


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.

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

Postby Nigel » Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:43 am

Interesting Ian wrote:
CHARLEY_BIGTIME wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote: OK, sorry I apologise. I just got infuriated by this point that rainbows need not be in the sky because they could be in front of us etc. I'm not sure if you're being serious, or just trying to annoy me.



So you admit the questionnaire is flawed? In which case - how can your results be accurate?


The questionnaire is fine. You cannot expect such a questionnaire to be totally unambiguous and accurate, and yet have novices at philosophy understand it. You have to keep the questions simple.


Interesting Ian wrote:(From page 1 of this thread.) No-one takes these quizzes seriously, nor should they do.


I'd also like to know how we "experience" color, and how that differs from "perceiving" color. We "perceive" color, as I've linked, because light, which is made of different wavelengths, bounce off an object (say, a red ball), and all the colors of the spectrum are absorbed by the ball, except the red wavelength. This light enters our eyes, hits the rods and cones at the back of the eye, is transmitted through the optic nerve into our brain and is decoded and recognized as a red ball. I don't see how that is "experienced".

Metaphysics is not necessary to tell us how we perceive light and color. Simple physics and biology will do.
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

Postby Interesting Ian » Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:08 am

CHARLEY_BIGTIME wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:

I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??


But then you said.

Interesting Ian wrote: I have absolutely no interest. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this present topic of discussion.


So you're interested in an answer to a question but you have no interest in it? Riiigghhhhhhht.

Interesting Ian wrote:I said the scientific story leading us to understand the physical processes in the brain has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with why I experience red when looking at a red object. How do you explain it from the perspective of materialism??


Why should I explain something when you have already admitted that you are not interested in it. Or perhaps you are interested in my interest in this interesting subject. Is Yahweh interesting? I'm actually interested in the interests of interesting people. Perhaps you're not. That's interesting.


Interesting Ian wrote:Now try to get it through your dumbfuck skull of yours. The same goes for the rest of those who somehow are stupid enough to think it is a scientific question.


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.


Charley Bigtime, you're a fucking idiot. If you understand nothing of my posts, then don't friggin' respond to them.

CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Postby CHARLEY_BIGTIME » Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:40 am

Interesting Ian wrote:
Charley Bigtime, you're a fucking idiot. If you understand nothing of my posts, then don't friggin' respond to them.


Ah - so you contradict yourself left right and centre, admit the questionnaire is flawed despite arguing that it's not for three pages then say that the questionnaire is not to be taken seriously then lambast people for not taking it seriously enough and finally admitting that you are not interested in the answer to a question that you, yourself have asked and *I'm* the idiot?


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.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Postby Paul C. Anagnostopoulos » Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:47 pm

Ian wrote:I asked the question because I want to know the answer Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??
...
This question is not a scientific one. It cannot be answered by science. It is a question regarding metaphysics.

Then you can make up any answer that you like, which is what you have done. The material metaphysicists can do likewise. The fact that you find these answers interesting is quite fascinating, since, if they are not scientific, there is no way you can investigate or verify them.

~~ Paul
It is a sterile stratagem to insert miracles to bridge the unknown. ---A. G. Cairns-Smith

User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 23 times

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

Postby ceptimus » Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:53 am

OK only just seen this thread and I've only read the OP yet, but I'll bite.

(1) b.
(2) c.
(3) b (if the evidence is compelling). Also c (unless and until we understood the reason) and d (by definition). But my first choice is b.
(4) c.
(5) c.
(6) Difficult. I rule out b, as rainbows can also be captured by cameras. If I must choose one, it must be d.
(7) c. (I'm starting to find this annoying now).
(8) a. (that was the stupidest set of overlapping answer choices so far).
(9) a.
(10) d.
(11) a.

User avatar
Girl on the Moon
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:00 pm
Location: Sitting on the moon

Postby Girl on the Moon » Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:39 pm

1 C
2 C
3 C
4 C
5 C
6 C
7 C
8 A
9 B
10 D
11 A

I answered to the best on my ability given the questions and answers available.
Giant steps are what you take, walkin on the moon

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

Postby Nigel » Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:48 pm

Ian has left the building!

Wonder when he'll show up again? Hmmmm......
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

Postby Interesting Ian » Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:38 pm

Nigel wrote:Ian has left the building!

Wonder when he'll show up again? Hmmmm......


Here I am. Just been suspended from the JREF :)

That'll teach me!

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

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

Postby Interesting Ian » Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:42 pm

ceptimus wrote:OK only just seen this thread and I've only read the OP yet, but I'll bite.

(1) b.
(2) c.
(3) b (if the evidence is compelling). Also c (unless and until we understood the reason) and d (by definition). But my first choice is b.
(4) c.
(5) c.
(6) Difficult. I rule out b, as rainbows can also be captured by cameras. If I must choose one, it must be d.
(7) c. (I'm starting to find this annoying now).
(8) a. (that was the stupidest set of overlapping answer choices so far).
(9) a.
(10) d.
(11) a.


Naturalist, fairly close to materialist.

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

Postby Interesting Ian » Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:45 pm

Girl on the Moon wrote:1 C
2 C
3 C
4 C
5 C
6 C
7 C
8 A
9 B
10 D
11 A

I answered to the best on my ability given the questions and answers available.


Naturalist, more near to semi-idealist than materialist.

Pink_Rabbit
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 7:39 am

Postby Pink_Rabbit » Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:19 pm

Okay, I'll play

1. b
2. c
3. b
4. b
5. b
6. a
7. c
8. a
9. b
10. c
11. c

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

Postby Interesting Ian » Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:57 pm

Pink_Rabbit wrote:Okay, I'll play

1. b
2. c
3. b
4. b
5. b
6. a
7. c
8. a
9. b
10. c
11. c


A semi-idealist PR :( Mind you, you only just to say missed out on being a naturalist :)

Jeff
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:01 pm

Postby Jeff » Sat Jul 24, 2004 10:25 pm

[quote="Interesting Ian] Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object
I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??[/quote]
Because you have cones in the retina of your eye that respond to the 3 primary colors, red, blue and green.
When visible light primarily in the longer wavelengths of the visible spectrum stimulate the receptors that respond to red, you see red. In the middle, green. Shorter end, blue.
At birth, you don't know that, but as you learn from other people how to label colors, you can agree with them about what is green or red or blue. Or yellow, which is a combination of responding from the green and red receptors.

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

Postby Interesting Ian » Sat Jul 24, 2004 10:40 pm

Jeff wrote:[quote="Interesting Ian] Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object
I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??
Because you have cones in the retina of your eye that respond to the 3 primary colors, red, blue and green.
When visible light primarily in the longer wavelengths of the visible spectrum stimulate the receptors that respond to red, you see red. In the middle, green. Shorter end, blue.
At birth, you don't know that, but as you learn from other people how to label colors, you can agree with them about what is green or red or blue. Or yellow, which is a combination of responding from the green and red receptors.


This does not at all answer the question. You cannot answer the question using science. Indeed I venture to suggest it is not possible to answer the question by whatever means.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Postby Paul C. Anagnostopoulos » Sun Jul 25, 2004 12:26 am

Ian wrote:This does not at all answer the question. You cannot answer the question using science. Indeed I venture to suggest it is not possible to answer the question by whatever means.

It appears to answer the question for most of us, so perhaps you could try to refine the question so as to make it clear what hasn't been answered.

~~ Paul
It is a sterile stratagem to insert miracles to bridge the unknown. ---A. G. Cairns-Smith

Jeff
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:01 pm

Postby Jeff » Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:23 pm

Interesting Ian wrote:
Jeff wrote:[quote="Interesting Ian] Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object
I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??
Because you have cones in the retina of your eye that respond to the 3 primary colors, red, blue and green.
When visible light primarily in the longer wavelengths of the visible spectrum stimulate the receptors that respond to red, you see red. In the middle, green. Shorter end, blue.
At birth, you don't know that, but as you learn from other people how to label colors, you can agree with them about what is green or red or blue. Or yellow, which is a combination of responding from the green and red receptors.


This does not at all answer the question. You cannot answer the question using science. Indeed I venture to suggest it is not possible to answer the question by whatever means.

Which part of the answer are you unable to understand? If you say "All of it", I give up, you are a hopeless ignoramus.

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

Postby Interesting Ian » Sun Jul 25, 2004 3:30 pm

Jeff wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:
Jeff wrote:[quote="Interesting Ian] Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object
I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??
Because you have cones in the retina of your eye that respond to the 3 primary colors, red, blue and green.
When visible light primarily in the longer wavelengths of the visible spectrum stimulate the receptors that respond to red, you see red. In the middle, green. Shorter end, blue.
At birth, you don't know that, but as you learn from other people how to label colors, you can agree with them about what is green or red or blue. Or yellow, which is a combination of responding from the green and red receptors.


This does not at all answer the question. You cannot answer the question using science. Indeed I venture to suggest it is not possible to answer the question by whatever means.

Which part of the answer are you unable to understand? If you say "All of it", I give up, you are a hopeless ignoramus.


I said it doesn't answer the question. I understand your answer; it's just that it's wholly irrelevant.

But what's new? None of you arseholes understand anything, and I get suspended from boards because of it.

Jeff
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:01 pm

Postby Jeff » Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:10 pm

Interesting Ian wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:
Jeff wrote:[quote="Interesting Ian] Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object
I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??
Because you have cones in the retina of your eye that respond to the 3 primary colors, red, blue and green.
When visible light primarily in the longer wavelengths of the visible spectrum stimulate the receptors that respond to red, you see red. In the middle, green. Shorter end, blue.
At birth, you don't know that, but as you learn from other people how to label colors, you can agree with them about what is green or red or blue. Or yellow, which is a combination of responding from the green and red receptors.


This does not at all answer the question. You cannot answer the question using science. Indeed I venture to suggest it is not possible to answer the question by whatever means.

Which part of the answer are you unable to understand? If you say "All of it", I give up, you are a hopeless ignoramus.


I said it doesn't answer the question. I understand your answer; it's just that it's wholly irrelevant.

But what's new? None of you arseholes understand anything, and I get suspended from boards because of it.

You must be simple. The answer is right there. What part don't you understand? I'll try it again in language suitable for a six year old, if you wish.


Return to “Religion & Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests