PDA

View Full Version : Flex your brain muscles


Brita
08-26-2010, 02:48 PM
This is challenging and fun! I have a headache but am totally enjoying the philisophical exercises. Give them a try.

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/

DahLliA
08-26-2010, 04:08 PM
took the battleground god thing. my comments in red:

Battleground Analysis
Bookmark and Share

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Hits and Bullets criteria
Philosophy Experiments


Comparative Statistics

* 503029 people have completed this activity to date.
* You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 1 bullet.
* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullets.
* 46.06% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
* 8.13% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

Analysis of your Direct Hit

List of questions

Direct Hit 1

You answered True to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

well. if god does exist he/she/it might be in a form we're unable to grasp or sense at all.

a huge, fricking dinosaur swimming around in a lake is a pretty tangible thing which would most likely have been found by now.

I see why it's a contradiction, but IMO there are levels of non-proveability. not just black and white

Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

List of questions

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered True to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So You've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

see my earlier point about levels of proof. even though evolution isn't proven, it makes sense. most gods we have made up don't.

You chose to bite the bullet.

EDIT: did a few more. not gonna post them though, but I gotta say I like this site. even though I fall outside their box a few times.

Ivhon
08-26-2010, 05:21 PM
I did not like the fat man game in that (without spoilers) it assumes some hypothetical truths that are inconsistent with research in reality. The research in reality informed one of my original responses which was then invalidated when the different definition in the hypothetical situation was explained.

Im sure that made soooo much sense.

Jokeslayer
08-26-2010, 05:31 PM
That is pretty fun. Thanks for posting it.

DahLliA
08-26-2010, 07:17 PM
I did not like the fat man game in that (without spoilers) it assumes some hypothetical truths that are inconsistent with research in reality. The research in reality informed one of my original responses which was then invalidated when the different definition in the hypothetical situation was explained.

Im sure that made soooo much sense.

it didn't :p

if you can explain what the research is it might help though

Ivhon
08-26-2010, 07:53 PM
it didn't :p

if you can explain what the research is it might help though

Ill go ahead and spoil.

One of the first questions is "Is torture ever justified." I answered "no" because in real life I firmly believe that it produces no reliable results.

However, the hypothetical gives a 75% chance that the fat man will give up the intelligence (as it were) that would save 1 million people. Based on THAT little tidbit of fanciful information, I tortured the shit out of the fat man - which of course created all kinds of moral contradictions.

Had I known that in this hypothetical world, torture has a 75% chance of producing actionable results, I would have changed my original answer and been perfectly clean on that particular game.

DahLliA
08-26-2010, 08:19 PM
ah. I went with yes on that. I mean. if there's even a 1% chance I'd be willing to take it.

the thing that annoyed me is they didn't take height for legal problems on the second question. I chose not to push the innocent fat man off. but not because I don't think it would be the best solution, but because I don't wanna go to jail.

I'm pretty sure I'd be convicted of murder in most courts if I did that, even though it was to save 5 lives(I've tried to discuss similiar things with other people and they simply refuse to see why it is the logical thing to do)

I'd probably be charged after pushing the saboteur too, but I think that one would go down much easier for most people.

so IMO they should add "no legal repercussions" to the second question

Kimon
08-26-2010, 09:12 PM
Ill go ahead and spoil.

One of the first questions is "Is torture ever justified." I answered "no" because in real life I firmly believe that it produces no reliable results.

However, the hypothetical gives a 75% chance that the fat man will give up the intelligence (as it were) that would save 1 million people. Based on THAT little tidbit of fanciful information, I tortured the shit out of the fat man - which of course created all kinds of moral contradictions.

Had I known that in this hypothetical world, torture has a 75% chance of producing actionable results, I would have changed my original answer and been perfectly clean on that particular game.

Yeah, that was the only one that they thought that I was being inconsistent on too. I'd maintain however that they are incorrect. It is possible to both think that torture is always unjust, and to nonetheless yield to expediency and put someone to the screws to serve the greater good, by committing an act that you consider unjust, but necessary. It only follows that you then would have to present yourself as a war criminal to the Hague after saving everyone from the terrorist attack. Perfectly consistent.

Of course, their numbers are also ridiculous. If you put the screws to me, and asked leading questions with the clear indication that the torture wasn't going to stop till I told them what they wanted to hear, eventually I'd tell them what they want to hear. Torture produces confessions, it doesn't necessarily produce truth. Just look at witchcraft trials in Europe in the Middle Ages if you doubt what torture produces.

Nazbaque
08-26-2010, 09:33 PM
Overall I like this site. It's just unfortunate that my beliefs often fall into the gray area between yes and no.

As an example: I think believing that god exists is illogical and I think that believing that god doesn't exist is also illogical. I simply think that we do not know if there is a god and believing otherwise is illogical. However the site disagrees with me and doesn't allow this opinion to exist.

Ivhon
08-26-2010, 09:52 PM
Overall I like this site. It's just unfortunate that my beliefs often fall into the gray area between yes and no.

As an example: I think believing that god exists is illogical and I think that believing that god doesn't exist is also illogical. I simply think that we do not know if there is a god and believing otherwise is illogical. However the site disagrees with me and doesn't allow this opinion to exist.

Which is illogical!

yks 6nnetu hing
08-27-2010, 02:10 AM
answered true to 10 and 14

I got the same direct hit. the problem for me is that no-one (as far as I know) is claiming that the Loch Ness monster has any special abilities, such as teleporting or becoming indetectable in some other way, people are just claiming that it IS. In one specific lake, and there alone. for God, people are claiming lots of different things other than that he/she/it IS, one of the main ones is that it's impossible for us to actually *see* him/her/it. Unless you're dead, that is.

GonzoTheGreat
08-27-2010, 05:04 AM
I did the Battleground God thing, and of course I was logically consistent. They did say that I bit one bullet. Their commentary on that:
You answered True to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.Well, duh.

My main reason for being an atheist is the fact that any religious conviction is by definition illogical and hence not rational.
The fact that most people prefer insanity over unbelief does not make them right, now does it?

GonzoTheGreat
08-27-2010, 05:13 AM
Now I'm doing the Britney vs. Shakespeare one. I think a lot of you lot will be surprised to hear that I would take my copy of Shakespeare's work to the desert island, if I had to stay there for 24 hours.
Probably as a result of my decision to take another stab at reading Hamlet rather than listening to Britney twice, Shakespeare won with 56 points to Britney's 54. Of course, Britney is still young, and she is still producing more albums, so eventually she may very well become the Greatest Artist ever.

Nazbaque
08-27-2010, 05:55 AM
Which is illogical!
What is?

yks 6nnetu hing
08-27-2010, 07:14 AM
The morality ones are weird too. Apparently I am not consistent if I believe in moral relativism but think that some things are morally bad. just because *I* think certain things are morally bad does not mean that I think all people should think that those same things are morally bad.

I really don't see where the inconsistency is...

ETA: my god creation fot a 1.0 meaning it's both plausible in our universe and logically consistent with itself. However, the site does not think that other people would call it God. At least, not in a Judaeo-Christian-Muslim sense.

Leanne
08-27-2010, 08:36 AM
This is fun. I've only done the fat man one so far. I was very inconsistent because I pushed the fat guy off and tortured him as well. I believe it said I was 50%. I agree that I can believe it is unjust but do what has to be done to save more people especially as Ivhon said, we KNOW there is a 75% chance. So, I disagree that I was inconsistent. I didn't even consider the legal repercussions of pushing him off. I doubt we would be thinking about that in the situation either.

Anyway, the first questions are obviously general, so we answer them on a general morality level. Probably 99% of the time, what I answered would be true. Given specific situations like these, obviously other aspects are taken into consideration.

Let's see what's next...

Brita
08-27-2010, 09:03 AM
I agree that I can believe it is unjust but do what has to be done to save more people especially as Ivhon said, we KNOW there is a 75% chance. So, I disagree that I was inconsistent.

To say that torture is wrong in all circumstances, and then justify why you would do it in a certain circumstance is still inconsistent, even if it is understandable. I can say to myself "This is contrary to my value system, but a necessary evil" and recognize there is a dissonance, even if it is one of necessity. I didn't really have a problem with this one, except perhaps that it went contrary to all the evidence that shows torture in ineffective.

I found the philosophical health check to be a little frustrating. I knew exactly which points I was inconsistent on before my results came up and still felt the same way. i.e. Everyone should be free to pursue their interests as long as it harms no one (I agreed) and Recreational drugs should be legalized (I disagree with the blanket statement). Of course it flagged me as inconsistent, but I would argue that heroin harms people around you. There is no way to casually shoot up every once in a while without becoming a strung out addict harming those around you. And harm is more than just causing death (as the explanation seemed to focus on).

Anyway, all in all they are great exercises to stretch your thinking, and I find myself inspecting philosophical areas I have never considered (i.e. who owns my body?)

Leanne
08-27-2010, 09:50 AM
I did the logic Elementary, My Dear Wason test. 3 for 3. Logically I am consistent at last...haha.

Alanna Alai
09-02-2010, 08:24 PM
When I did the logic test I bombed it. 0 for 3. I was of course working through a really nasty cold and heavily medicated...

Nazbaque
09-02-2010, 09:20 PM
Excuses, excuses:p

Uno
09-06-2010, 10:18 PM
This test annoys me. Yes, I don't believe that universal moral standards actually exist, but I am a member of a culture with a moral system, and as such I can say that genocide is evil, because according to my culture's moral standards it is. There's no contradiction here for those that don't believe in universal absolutes.

Also, what's happened to the spacing of the post text lately?

Sinistrum
09-06-2010, 10:48 PM
I've found most of the games I've played to be flawed in certain respects. They seem to have a very black and white view of what ideas contradict each other when a lot of times its not that simple.

GonzoTheGreat
09-07-2010, 03:39 AM
Also, what's happened to the spacing of the post text lately?That is the result of the expansion of the universe, or at least of Theoryland. Another sign of this is the fact that post links have turned blue.

Of course, in a real universe, such a change would have resulted in a red shift, not a blue shift, but you can't expect Tamyrlin to be aware of that kind of details.

Or, if you want to use the "official" explanation: some restyling has been done, changing colors and fonts. Why this resulted in greater (more?, whatever) leading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading) (never encountered that word in this meaning before, before I looked it up while making this post) is unclear.

Mort
09-07-2010, 06:43 AM
The morality ones are weird too. Apparently I am not consistent if I believe in moral relativism but think that some things are morally bad. just because *I* think certain things are morally bad does not mean that I think all people should think that those same things are morally bad.

I really don't see where the inconsistency is...



I had the same problem. I answered that I believe in moral relativism. I think it's the wording of the question. "Genocide is wrong" is probably supposed to be interpreted as an objective truth, while "Do you believe genocide is wrong" is relative. Since I believe in relative/subjective truths and morals, I of course interpret all those quetions as relative ;)

fdsaf3
09-09-2010, 01:32 PM
Based on the tests I did (torture fat man, god creation), I think the logic behind the tests is flawed. It seems most everyone here thinks the same thing. For example, my problem with the torture test is that it seems to be predicated on the idea that no one should think with 100% certainty that all torture is bad all the time. Therefore, we should all be able to create scenarios in which we would condone torture, or at least be able to be convinced of its efficacy. There's no normative judgment here, i.e. whether or not torture would produce a good result.

Like everyone else, I just think that type of reasoning is flawed. The 'create a god' test is equally flawed, but slightly more humorous than the other tests I've taken or read all of your thoughts on.

Nazbaque
09-09-2010, 05:05 PM
The basic flaw in the ones about morality is that they seem to think you can't do something you think is morally wrong. This of course is absolute bollocks because if it were true no one nowhere would ever feel guilty about anything.