A quiz: Are you a materialist or idealist?

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Post by CHARLEY_BIGTIME »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

<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: 7990
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

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 »

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: 7990
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

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 »

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 »

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: 7990
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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: 256
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:50 pm
Location: USA

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

Post by The Central Scrutinizer »

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: 7990
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

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 »

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 »

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.

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

Post by Interesting Ian »

CHARLEY_BIGTIME wrote:
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.

OK OK, rainbows don't need to be in the fucking sky. They can be in front of us, or below us, behind us or wherever.

People on here need to attempt to learn to understand everyday normal language that people employ. When the author of the questionnaire says "in the sky", he simply is asking whether we believe that rainbows are constitutive of the external world. They can be in the sky, in front of us, below us, behind us, on the other side of the world or whereverr. They just simply need to be part of the external world.

If you can't understand simply questions then don't whine to me about it. Get some serious fucking help.
User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7990
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

Interesting Ian wrote:
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.
Ian, you remind me of a fellow I used to know several years ago. He constantly wanted to have a "contest" about movie trivia - but since he was primarily interested in gore films, and the rest of us weren't, all his questions concerned people like Dario Argento, an Italian film director famed for making some of the most bloody gore-filled zombie flicks ever put on screen. In other words, he asked questions only he was able to answer. You seem to be doing the same thing.

I've done some searching, but cannot find a reference to "different brain states" as relating to color perception. In particular, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about, for instance, our brains emit alpha waves when we see red, but beta waves when we see green? Or something entirely different? You may be correct, but I'd ask you to be more specific, and put it in laymen's terms.

In the meantime, here is some information I did find.

Jeremy Nathans spent much of the past 17 years focusing on just one aspect of vision: how we see colors.
http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b110.html

What exactly is the product of a perceptual process?
There seems to be an innocuous--indeed trivial--answer:
The product of a perceptual process is a perception!
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/seebelie.htm
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
Nigel
Posts: 7990
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

Interesting Ian wrote:
People on here need to attempt to learn to understand everyday normal language that people employ.
Interesting Ian wrote:Thus this would be a rejection of materialism and an endorsement of epiphenomenalism
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
If you can't laugh, what good are you?

I thought I won't submit this...but who cares...let it roll. -Pillory
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

Ian wrote: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.
What does your last sentence mean? If you are simply defining conscious experience as nonphysical, and therefore claiming that such experiences refute materialism, then your argument is purely definitional. This way you can use any ill-understood physical process as an argument against materialism.

~~ Paul
[size=84]It is a sterile stratagem to insert miracles to bridge the unknown. ---A. G. Cairns-Smith[/size]
User avatar
wollery
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Liverpool

Post by wollery »

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.
How convenient.

I ask a polite, well intended question and you disappear for several days failing to post a response.

I make a flippant remark, admittedly slightly pointed and at your expense (but not particularly serious), and you declare that you "refuse to converse with fucking arseholes."

Rather saves you from having to explain your point of view doesn't it?
Interesting Ian wrote: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.
That you don't accept the physical explanations that are offered is your prerogative, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

You have an opinion, not a monopoly on truth.

Edited to correct grammatical error.
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 »

Nigel wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:
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.
Ian, you remind me of a fellow I used to know several years ago. He constantly wanted to have a "contest" about movie trivia - but since he was primarily interested in gore films, and the rest of us weren't, all his questions concerned people like Dario Argento, an Italian film director famed for making some of the most bloody gore-filled zombie flicks ever put on screen. In other words, he asked questions only he was able to answer. You seem to be doing the same thing.
If you cannot answer my question you should not be a materialist! :o

I've done some searching, but cannot find a reference to "different brain states" as relating to color perception.
With any mental state, there will be a corresponding brain state; yes? If brains generate minds, or if mind states are identical or supervene on brain states, then for different people to have similar mind states, their brain states must be similar. OK??

In particular, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about, for instance, our brains emit alpha waves when we see red, but beta waves when we see green? Or something entirely different? You may be correct, but I'd ask you to be more specific, and put it in laymen's terms.
I have absolutely no idea if they do or not. The only science I took at school was physics, and that was only to the age of 16. Anyway, this is irrelevant. The fact, if it is a fact, that brains emit alpha waves when we experience redness, does not explain why we see redness rather than greenness, blueness, experience an orgasm or any otehr mental state.

I know you don't understand. Just read my "Is materialism correct" section in my web site when I have completed it (quarter of the way through at the moment).


In the meantime, here is some information I did find.

Jeremy Nathans spent much of the past 17 years focusing on just one aspect of vision: how we see colors.
http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b110.html

What exactly is the product of a perceptual process?
There seems to be an innocuous--indeed trivial--answer:
The product of a perceptual process is a perception!
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/seebelie.htm
First of all I can't get the first link. Second link looks ok. I've just read the first 2 paragraghs.

BTW, just by coincidence, I've just started last night reading a book called "the nature of perception" by John Foster. Apparently he comes to the conclusion that idealism is the only coherent position. But at the moment I'm reading about representational realism and direct realism, and further sub-catagories of these positions. Heavy going stuff! For example, this is the paragraph I'm just trying to come to grips with now:

(I'm using voice recognition software rather than typing out LOL).

Note # replaces peculiar symbol the author uses.
Broad representational theory (BRT), as I have said, takes the #-terminal perceptual relationship to break down into two components, one of which is the subject's being in a certain psychological state -- a state which is not, in itself, perceptive of the relevant physical item -- and the other of which comprises certain additional facts, but ones which do not involve anything further about the subject's psychological condition at the relevant time. Now, in requiring the relevant psychological state to be one which is not, in itself, perceptive of the relevant physical item -- one which does not, on its own, suffice to put the subject into perceptual contact with that item -- BRT is, in effect, requiring it to be one which is not, in itself, physically perceptive at all -- to be a state which is logically capable of realisation without there being anything physical perceived. This is not because there is any general difficulty in understanding how a state which is, in itself, physically perceptive could be mediationally involved in the perceiving of a physical item of which it is not in itself perceptive. For a state which is in itself perceptive of one physical item might be mediationally involved in the perceiving of another. But once we have reached the point of # terminaity -- the point where there is no further physical item which is more immediately perceived -- the only way in which the psychological state which is fundamentally involved in the perceiving of the relevant physical item could turn out to be itself physically perceptive will be by being, in itself, perceptive of that item.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

wollery wrote:
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.
How convenient.

I ask a polite, well intended question and you disappear for several days failing to post a response.

I make a flippant remark, admittedly slightly pointed and at your expense (but not particularly serious), and you declare that you "refuse to converse with fucking arseholes."
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.

Rather saves you from having to explain your point of view doesn't it?
At the moment I'm doing a website. I'm just doing the section "Is materialism correct" now. So it would be better if I just concentrated on doing that, then you can read that section when I have completed it.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/interestin ... eality.htm
User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7990
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

Interesting Ian wrote:
If you cannot answer my question you should not be a materialist! :o
Irrelevant.
Interesting Ian wrote:
With any mental state, there will be a corresponding brain state; yes? If brains generate minds, or if mind states are identical or supervene on brain states, then for different people to have similar mind states, their brain states must be similar. OK??
One, please define your term and context "brain state". Two, how do you know brains generate minds? The most reliable information I learned was that the mind is the brain and the body working together in a sort of circuit. If that's true, then the rest of your statement falls apart.
Interesting Ian wrote: I have absolutely no idea if they do or not. The only science I took at school was physics, and that was only to the age of 16. Anyway, this is irrelevant. The fact, if it is a fact, that brains emit alpha waves when we experience redness, does not explain why we see redness rather than greenness, blueness, experience an orgasm or any otehr mental state.
I never said brains emit alpha waves, etc. when we "experience" redness, I used that as an example to try to understand what you're talking about.
Interesting Ian wrote:I know you don't understand. Just read my "Is materialism correct" section in my web site when I have completed it (quarter of the way through at the moment).
Just read your article when it's written? Right. I really have no intention of keeping up with your website.


Interesting Ian wrote: First of all I can't get the first link. Second link looks ok. I've just read the first 2 paragraghs.
I tried the first link from this post, and it worked fine for me. Must be on your end.
Interesting Ian wrote: BTW, just by coincidence, I've just started last night reading a book called "the nature of perception" by John Foster. Apparently he comes to the conclusion that idealism is the only coherent position. But at the moment I'm reading about representational realism and direct realism, and further sub-catagories of these positions. Heavy going stuff! For example, this is the paragraph I'm just trying to come to grips with now:
*snip*
Doesn't mean a thing to me.
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 »

Nigel wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:
If you cannot answer my question you should not be a materialist! :o
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what?? The point is why are you a materialist??

Interesting Ian wrote:
With any mental state, there will be a corresponding brain state; yes? If brains generate minds, or if mind states are identical or supervene on brain states, then for different people to have similar mind states, their brain states must be similar. OK??
One, please define your term and context "brain state".
Either a particular unique physical configuration of the brain, or crucial similar elements.

Two, how do you know brains generate minds? The most reliable information I learned was that the mind is the brain and the body working together in a sort of circuit. If that's true, then the rest of your statement falls apart.
Read what I said!! I said:

"If brains generate minds, or if mind states are identical or supervene on brain states,"

Sheesh! {sweats}


Interesting Ian wrote: I have absolutely no idea if they do or not. The only science I took at school was physics, and that was only to the age of 16. Anyway, this is irrelevant. The fact, if it is a fact, that brains emit alpha waves when we experience redness, does not explain why we see redness rather than greenness, blueness, experience an orgasm or any otehr mental state.
I never said brains emit alpha waves, etc. when we "experience" redness, I used that as an example to try to understand what you're talking about.
Interesting Ian wrote:I know you don't understand. Just read my "Is materialism correct" section in my web site when I have completed it (quarter of the way through at the moment).
Just read your article when it's written? Right. I really have no intention of keeping up with your website.
Then please do not keep asking me questions and stop wasting my fucking time.


Interesting Ian wrote: First of all I can't get the first link. Second link looks ok. I've just read the first 2 paragraghs.
I tried the first link from this post, and it worked fine for me. Must be on your end.
Yeah it's been shite the past 3 weeks or so trying to get web pages. Wouldn't work with either explorer or navigator. Why the fuck it's costing me £25 a month I don't know!
Interesting Ian wrote: BTW, just by coincidence, I've just started last night reading a book called "the nature of perception" by John Foster. Apparently he comes to the conclusion that idealism is the only coherent position. But at the moment I'm reading about representational realism and direct realism, and further sub-catagories of these positions. Heavy going stuff! For example, this is the paragraph I'm just trying to come to grips with now:
*snip*
Doesn't mean a thing to me.
[/quote]

Hell, I'm not surprised! If people don't understand my points . . . ummm
User avatar
MLynn
Posts: 3770
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:09 am
Location: USA

Post by MLynn »

Ian, I finally had a chance to take the test:

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

How'd I do? :)
Obey the zombie whippet or she will eat your brain
I for one welcome our zombie Christian overlord - Philip
User avatar
wollery
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Liverpool

Post by wollery »

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.
Where the rainbow is is utterly irrelevant and wasn't the point I was making, but I think it best if we let that slide for the time being.

I wasn't trying to annoy you and I'm sorry if I did
(I only do that intentionally to good friends :D).
Interesting Ian wrote:At the moment I'm doing a website. I'm just doing the section "Is materialism correct" now. So it would be better if I just concentrated on doing that, then you can read that section when I have completed it.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/interestin ... eality.htm
Fair enough, let us know when it's done.
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 »

MLynn wrote:Ian, I finally had a chance to take the test:

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

How'd I do? :)
Naturalist.
Yahweh
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:05 pm

Post by Yahweh »

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.
If the object were reflecting green light, you'd be experiencing green. But it isnt, so you wont. Said object isnt refecting green light, so there should be no reason why you experience it. Simple as pie. If you pick up a ball, do you expect to be holding a cube? No, probably not.

Sorry, I dont have all the information about the chemistry of the occipital lobe to tell you the differences between a brain reacting to red light and a brain reacting to green light.
Jesus, Buffy! [url=http://www.fstdt.com]Fundies Say the Darndest Things![/url]
CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Post by CHARLEY_BIGTIME »

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

Post by Interesting Ian »

Yahweh 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.
If the object were reflecting green light,
Reflecting green light? Not literally I presume? The light itself doesn't look green, so why label it as green? I take it you mean a certain wavelength of electromagnetic radiation.




you'd be experiencing green.
Yes . . . so why do I experience greenness??



But it isnt, so you wont. Said object isnt refecting green light, so there should be no reason why you experience it. Simple as pie.
How the hell do you imagine this remotely answers my question in any shape or form?? This is just another way of pointing to correlations between brain states and mental states ie certain physical events have to occur which by a physical causal process puts my brain into a certain physical state, and then I experience greenness; or not as the case may be. This does absolutely nothing to show why I should not experience greenness if so-called ""green" light" is not reflected off object of interest.

As I say there is nothing about "green light" being reflected which logically entails I experience greenness. All we have is a brute fact ie brain needs to be in a certain state, then I will experience greenness. But the phenomonological experience is not integrated into the scientific picture of what's going on.


If you pick up a ball, do you expect to be holding a cube? No, probably not.
No of course not. We know from experience that certain visual sensations, are followed by certain tactile sensations after certain bodily movements. You pick an interesting example though because I would maintain that strictly speaking the visual appearance of a ball, and how it feels, are heterogeneous. There is nothing within the physical appearance of the ball which in itself would lead you to expect the way it would feel. But here we are talking about correlations between qualia. In the colour situation we are talking about correlations between the scientific depiction of reality and qualia.

Sorry, I dont have all the information about the chemistry of the occipital lobe to tell you the differences between a brain reacting to red light and a brain reacting to green light.
I have absolutely no interest. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this present topic of discussion.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

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.
CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Post by CHARLEY_BIGTIME »

Interesting Ian wrote:
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.
It's flawed and you admitted it. You cannot make an accurate profile from ambiguous questions.
CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Post by CHARLEY_BIGTIME »

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

Post by Interesting Ian »

CHARLEY_BIGTIME wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:
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.
It's flawed and you admitted it. You cannot make an accurate profile from ambiguous questions.
I repeat, get it through your thick skull, the questions are as unambiguous as they could be expected to be.

Where incidentally have I claimed the questionnaire gives an accurate profile? Or are you just making this up like all other arseholes on skeptic boards do?
CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Post by CHARLEY_BIGTIME »

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.