so everyone gets the same score... lame.
the short IQ tests are not accurate enough. take the full test, someone
find a link and then we can really see.
and to a limited extent, getting a good scrore means you are good at IQ tests, but it also means that you are good or bad at math, spatially thinking, verbal, word association, etc most of which we
use day to day (except when drinking).
Originally posted by underfeltApparently, despite my best efforts, I have learned something about philosophy:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm
more 'intellectual' fun
You have reached the end!
Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.
You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.12 bullets. 248948 people have so far undertaken this activity.
Hooray for Education!
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI take issue with this. I got through with no direct hits and one bitten bullet. My bitten bullet consisted of me endorsing the idea that any god would have to be omnipotent, and agreeing that this meant God could make 1+1 = 72. The program said this was strange and unpalatable, because making 1+1=72 is logically impossible, thus eliminating the possibility of rational discourse about god. I disagree that the statement '1+1=72' is logically invalid, however, so gutplunkit! Hrothgar gut meschmacken eist Gottwaar, eist Ubergeltenpimpenschwert mit!
Apparently, despite my best efforts, I have learned something about philosophy:
[b]You have reached the end!
Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.
You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The avera ...[text shortened]... so far undertaken this activity.
Hooray for Education!
[/b]
Originally posted by royalchickenI found several of the questions rather poorly worded, myself.
I take issue with this. I got through with no direct hits and one bitten bullet. My bitten bullet consisted of me endorsing the idea that any god would have to be omnipotent, and agreeing that this meant God could make 1+1 = 72. The program said this was strange and unpalatable, because making 1+1=72 is logically impossible, thus eliminating the poss ...[text shortened]... wever, so gutplunkit! Hrothgar gut meschmacken eist Gottwaar, eist Ubergeltenpimpenschwert mit!
I took the same bullet you did, but I also took an indirect hit
because it equated believing something and acting on something
believed as identical.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThis is a cool site, however. I've just done 'Morality Play', which tells me I'm some kind of autist, because I shoot for the minimum number of moral principles (100% moral parsimony). The 'So you think you're logical?' confirmed this (since I ticked the proper boxes). I was feeling pretty badass until I utterly failed to survive the 'personal identity' one 😛.
I found several of the questions rather poorly worded, myself.
I took the same bullet you did, but I also took an indirect hit
because it equated believing something and acting on something
believed as identical.
Nemesio
Originally posted by SirUlrichLOL Rec for you matey.
I only scored in double figures - what does IQ mean anyway, is it important?
I don't like IQ tests for one reason - they seem to breed a kind of intellectual snobbery. The sort of snobbery that reminds me of the way that rich middle class kids look down on the kids from the council estate nearby.
Originally posted by CorsairThey're also largely unscientific AFAIK, and it isn't clear what they are designed to measure.
LOL Rec for you matey.
I don't like IQ tests for one reason - they seem to breed a kind of intellectual snobbery. The sort of snobbery that reminds me of the way that rich middle class kids look down on the kids from the council estate nearby.
Originally posted by royalchickenPersonal Identity is a bitch of a problem. My results of the test were as follows:
I was feeling pretty badass until I utterly failed to survive the 'personal identity' one 😛.
Staying Alive
Congratulations! According to one theory of personal identity, you have survived!
You chose:
Round 1: Take me to the teletransporter!
Round 2: I'll take the silicon!
Round 3: Freeze me!
There are basically three kinds of things which could be required for the continued existence of your self. One is bodily continuity, which actually may require only parts of the body to stay in existence (e.g., the brain). Another is psychological continuity, which requires, for the continued existence of the self, the continuance of your consciousness, by which is meant your thoughts, ideas, memories, plans, beliefs and so on. And the third possibility is the continued existence of some kind of immaterial part of you, which might be called the soul. It may, of course, be the case that a combination of one or more types of these continuity is required for you to survive.
Your choices are consistent with the theory known as psychological reductionism. On this view, all that is required for the continued existence of the self is psychological continuity. Your three choices show that this is what you see as central to your sense of self, not any attachment to a particular substance, be it your body, brain or soul. However, some would say that you have not survived at all, but fallen foul of a terrible error. In the teletransporter case, for example, was it really you that travelled to Mars or is it more correct to say that a clone or copy of you was made on Mars, while you were destroyed?
What a nice little diagnostic!
Originally posted by Corsairi think that's quite true, and it is probably a mistake to think of these tests as anything but a bit of harmless fun. i certainly don't place any confidence in the results or think that they show i am intelligent or anything else. i kind of pity the people whose egos are in such need of shoring up that they actually part with good money to buy the full report telling them just how much of a genius they are.
LOL Rec for you matey.
I don't like IQ tests for one reason - they seem to breed a kind of intellectual snobbery. The sort of snobbery that reminds me of the way that rich middle class kids look down on the kids from the council estate nearby.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI also chose these answers. In the Battleground God I bit a bullet, but as with Nemesio and Chicken, I disagree with their take on this. Gonna try a few more today, much more fun and interesting than IQ tests. 🙂
Personal Identity is a bitch of a problem. My results of the test were as follows:
[b]Staying Alive
Congratulations! According to one theory of personal identity, you have survived!
You chose:
Round 1: Take me to the teletransporte ...[text shortened]... le you were destroyed?
What a nice little diagnostic!
[/b]
EDIT: LOL! Despite being an atheist, I have created a god with a plausibility rating of 1.0 which shows my suggested faith to be both internally consitent and consistent with the universe. Oh the irony 🙂
Originally posted by StarrmanI bit the bullet because I said that believing in evolution was fine despite their being no proof of it and that believing in god was not.
I also chose these answers. In the Battleground God I bit a bullet, but as with Nemesio and Chicken, I disagree with their take on this. Gonna try a few more today, much more fun and interesting than IQ tests. 🙂
EDIT: LOL! Despite being an atheist, I have created a god with a plausibility rating of 1.0 which shows my suggested faith to be both internally consitent and consistent with the universe. Oh the irony 🙂
However, I dispute the bold phrase (paraphrased, I can't remember it exactly).
1 edit
Do-It-Yourself Deity
Plausibility Quotient = 1.0
The metaphysical engineers have determined that your conception of God has a plausibility quotient (PQ) of 1.0. A PQ of 1.0 means that as far as the metaphysical engineers can determine your conception of God is internally consistent and consistent with the universe that we live in. A PQ of 0.0 means that it is neither internally consistent nor consistent with our universe. More than likely, your PQ score will be somewhere between these two figures. But remember that this is your PQ score as determined by the metaphysical engineers. The editors of TPM have no control over their deliberations, so don't blame us!
*******************
What kind of God is that!?
The metaphysical engineers are happy to report that, to the best of their knowledge, the God you conceive is internally consistent and could exist in our universe. But they are less sure that what you have described deserves the name of God. He is not, for example, all-powerful. A God which knows everything or is totally benign may be a wonderful ideal, but is she really a God unless she has ultimate power?
We suspect that your God is not the traditional God of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths.