A quiz: Are you a materialist or idealist?

[Interesting Ian]

1. a
2. c
3. b
4. d (though possibly c)
5. b
6. b
7. c
8. d
9. a
10. d
11. c

I'd like to state that I actually thought the test was fairly good, considering the original poster. (With the possible exception of question 8.) However, I would like to see the test's author's definitions of materialist, naturalist, semi-idealist, and idealist. By any chance is there a way we could see that?

A materialist, but only just.

[Interesting Ian]

This original poster is more likely to recognise a good test of ones metaphysical interpretation of reality than yourself.

Well, I'll admit that you did end up telling us your definitions of materialism and naturalism. I was happy, and somewhat amazed, to see this. If I say anything else, I will certainly derail this thread. Before I do so, I'll give the rest of the forum a couple of days to plead for its salvation. It's survived surprisingly long...

Huh?? What?? :? What's survived long?

[Interesting Ian]

Ooh, a quiz.

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

Some of the questions were quite confoozled.

~~ Paul

I can't understand why people find all the questions confusing. The only one which I'm slightly unhappy about is the democracy energy one.

You're a naturalist but only just missed being a materialist (by one point).

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

I can't understand why people find all the questions confusing. The only one which I'm slightly unhappy about is the democracy energy one.

That is because there is nothing ambiguous or self-contradictory about the questions when they are considered only from within your own view of the world, and you are apparently incapable of considering anything from anybody else's point of view.


Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

I can't understand why people find all the questions confusing. The only one which I'm slightly unhappy about is the democracy energy one.

That is because there is nothing ambiguous or self-contradictory about the questions when they are considered only from within your own view of the world, and you are apparently incapable of considering anything from anybody else's point of view.


Dr. Stupid

Don't be so patently absurd. Please point to any question which presupposes an idealist perspective :roll: There is nothing ambiguous about them full stop. Not by any means perfect of course, but fairly unambigious as to their meaning. If people are incapable of understanding the questions they must be impressively stupid. How do they actually manage to carry out an everyday conversation?

BTW, are you going to supply all your answers to this quiz or not?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Don't be so patently absurd. Please point to any question which presupposes an idealist perspective

I did not say that they presuppose an idealist perspective. I said that they are not ambiguous or self-contradictory when considered from within your worldview. There is a difference, although it does not surprise me in the slightest that the difference is not apparent to you.

There is nothing ambiguous about them full stop. Not by any means perfect of course, but fairly unambigious as to their meaning. If people are incapable of understanding the questions they must be impressively stupid. How do they actually manage to carry out an everyday conversation?

There you go again. Anybody who doesn't agree with you is just stupid. Like I said, you are so utterly incapable of considering anything from a point of view that contradicts your own, that you cannot even imagine how a reasonably intelligent person could not see how obvious it is that you are right. The fact that there are many very intelligent people who you seem to think are so stupid that they should not even be able to carry on a conversation, should serve as an indication to you that maybe, just maybe, the problem lies with you. But your own ego won't let you see that.

BTW, are you going to supply all your answers to this quiz or not?

I gave my answers. I am sorry if the answers I gave don't fit into your little algorithm for pigeon-holing people.


Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

Don't be so patently absurd. Please point to any question which presupposes an idealist perspective

I did not say that they presuppose an idealist perspective. I said that they are not ambiguous or self-contradictory when considered from within your worldview.

Either the questions are ambiguous or they are not. Your suggestion that their ambiguity depends upon ones world view is utterly absurd. But then you always were a complete dumbfuck so what else to expect :roll:

Anybody who doesn't agree with you is just stupid.

No! Anyone who is a materialist is fucking stupid. Anyone who doesn't understand the questions is not normal.

Now fuck off you complete tit and stop bothering me with your asinine posts.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let's take this question, for example:

(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?

These answers are not orthogonal. The evidence could be an accident, even if there is something to astrology. Answer (d) is compatible with (b) or (c), since astrology includes no explanation of how it works.

Furthermore, how can (c) be supportive of any philosophy? If we don't understand it, it refutes idealism just as much as naturalism. Unless idealism is defined as "a bunch of gobbledegook we don't understand."

Finally, how about (e) a relation between the seasons in which people are born and the path of their lives?

The idea that 11 simple questions can determine my life's philosophy is utterly absurd.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Let's take this question, for example:

(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?

These answers are not orthogonal. The evidence could be an accident, even if there is something to astrology. Answer (d) is compatible with (b) or (c), since astrology includes no explanation of how it works.

Yup.

Furthermore, how can (c) be supportive of any philosophy? If we don't understand it, it refutes idealism just as much as naturalism. Unless idealism is defined as "a bunch of gobbledegook we don't understand."

A correlation between the positions of the planets and human fate doesn't prove anything. I'm in agreement that it doesn't support idealism anymore than materialism.

Finally, how about (e) a relation between the seasons in which people are born and the path of their lives?

The idea that 11 simple questions can determine my life's philosophy is utterly absurd.

I agree that the questionnaire is far from perfect.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But before you said:

If people are incapable of understanding the questions they must be impressively stupid.

Hello?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

But before you said:

If people are incapable of understanding the questions they must be impressively stupid.

Hello?

~~ Paul

I don't agree with the astrology question. {shrugs} So what?

And certainly this has nothing to do with how easy the question is to understand.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And certainly this has nothing to do with how easy the question is to understand.

Surely you're joking. If one cannot get at what the author is trying to present in terms of choices, then the question is difficult to understand.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now let's consider this question:

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

This is one of those silly philosophical plays on the broad meaning of words. The light reflecting off raindrops is in the sky and in the raindrops. The perception of the resulting rainbow is in my eyes and brain. The pure concept of a rainbow is in my mind, but is also a sort of meme that is really everywhere and nowhere.

I guess the idea is that forcing me to choose one location narrows down my metaphysic. :/

~~ Paul

[viscousmemories]

I guess the idea is that forcing me to choose one location narrows down my metaphysic. :/

Yeah, to be honest I got stuck on the first one because I think the ability to communicate thoughts to someone without speaking or using a machine is 'actual', despite not believing in telepathy. For example, if you were here with me right now I bet I could easily communicate "Give me that soda on the counter" using only hand gestures.

After thinking too hard about that for awhile I just flew through the rest without giving them a whole lot of thought. But I came out a naturalist, which is a fairly accurate characterization of my beliefs. Oddly.

[wollery]

(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?

b, but as pointed out by someone else, the question is poorly phrased as it does not state that other intermediaries are not available.

(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?

c, why would we need to abandon or create a scientific discipline

(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?

a, correlation does not imply causation (and besides, all of the statistical evidence shows absolutely no correlation between planetary positions and human behaviour or fate).

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

c, again poorly worded, it should say something like, "some essence of a human (eg spirit) survives the death of the physical body".

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

a, the physics we have today may someday be seen as insufficient, but not innacurate (let alone wildly so) and certainly not myth. None of the actual science that has ever been done is seen in those terms.

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

c, but the question (again!!) is poorly phrased and the answers practically irrelevant. A rainbow is formed by a complex interaction of light and raindrops. The rainbow itself exists in a unique place for each observer, but cannot be said to not exist anywhere. The question is fundamentally flawed, probably by the questioner not understanding the physics involved.

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

c, that's the closest to what I think, but b and d could also be good answers. If the question were more specifically about maths then I'd be happier with my answer.

(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.

d, unlike others I'm actually perfectly happy with this, democracy is a concept which has never been truly practised anywhere by any state or nation.

(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.

a, we already understand the physical and biochemical interactions that manifest as "stress"

(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.

c, personality? maybe, mental illness or health, already known.

(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.

c, it makes no difference. Why should it?

[CHARLEY_BIGTIME]

Now fuck off you complete tit and stop bothering me with your asinine posts.

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]

Now fuck off you complete tit and stop bothering me with your asinine posts.

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.

Point out any circular arguments I have ever made. Point out any errors in my arguments. Otherwise desist repeating Mr Stupid's comments.

[Interesting Ian]

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

(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?

b, but as pointed out by someone else, the question is poorly phrased as it does not state that other intermediaries are not available.

Needless nitpicking.

(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?

c, why would we need to abandon or create a scientific discipline

(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?

a, correlation does not imply causation (and besides, all of the statistical evidence shows absolutely no correlation between planetary positions and human behaviour or fate).

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

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

c, again poorly worded, it should say something like, "some essence of a human (eg spirit) survives the death of the physical body".

Again needless nitpicking.

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

a, the physics we have today may someday be seen as insufficient, but not innacurate (let alone wildly so) and certainly not myth. None of the actual science that has ever been done is seen in those terms.

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

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

c, but the question (again!!) is poorly phrased and the answers practically irrelevant.

I fail to see how.

A rainbow is formed by a complex interaction of light and raindrops.

Ummm . .that's the scientific story. And the question is where rainbows are.

The rainbow itself exists in a unique place for each observer, but cannot be said to not exist anywhere.

What do you mean? Would you say all physical objects exist in a unique place for each observer?

The question is fundamentally flawed, probably by the questioner not understanding the physics involved.

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

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

c, that's the closest to what I think, but b and d could also be good answers. If the question were more specifically about maths then I'd be happier with my answer.

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.

(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.

d, unlike others I'm actually perfectly happy with this, democracy is a concept which has never been truly practised anywhere by any state or nation.

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

(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.

a, we already understand the physical and biochemical interactions that manifest as "stress"

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.

(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.

c, personality? maybe, mental illness or health, already known.

What's that supposed to mean?? My previous comments apply here.

(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.

c, it makes no difference. Why should it?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

Stress is not a conscious experience, it is a physical reaction. There are accompanying experiences, such as fear or agitation. In fact, the question actually suggests that stress is partially a result of such experiences. If the author wanted to talk about some conscious experience, he should have used something other than stress.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

Oh come on, this is another one of those questions that plays on the broad meaning of words.

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

I have no idea what it means to say that numbers are fictions. Here, let me try one: 142. Boo!

They are certainly marks on paper and ideas in our minds.

What about objects independent of us? Does he mean concrete numbers or the abstract concept of a number? Certainly concrete numbers are independent of us; when there are 13 stones lying on the ground, there is the concrete number 13. So I presume he means that the abstract concept of numbers are independent of us. I don't understand what that means. Is it some kind of Platonism?

~~ Paul

[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.

[Interesting Ian]

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.

[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?

[Interesting Ian]

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]

Psirorny, was all it was.
Pull my finger.

[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

[wollery]

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.

[jr]

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 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.

[wollery]

Ian,

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?

[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.

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

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]

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.

No! Anyone who is a materialist is fucking stupid.

[Mooseboy]

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.

[wollery]

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.

[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]

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.

[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

[Interesting Ian]

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.

[Interesting Ian]

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]

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?