Originally posted by robbie carrobieI did, I asked you, as it was you that made the statements and presumably know what you mean. I don't think anyone else does.
I have made it clear three times now, if you cannot understand it ask someone for help.
The materialist is determined to reduce the human experience to biological mechanisms.
Please clarify what you mean by that rather than simply repeating it with no explanation.
It is pure folly to do so as Nigel Sorts ludicrous assertions prove.
His assertions though false do not prove very much more than his own over inflated ego.
He is however correct that there are known differences between the average male brain and the average female brain. Some of these differences may affect the ability to win at chess. His error is to think that the low number of successful female players indicate that the female brain is not as good as the male brain at chess.
It is a fact however that biological factors can affect the ability to play. I know this from personal experience. I have a genetic B12 deficiency, and it has quite serious effects on my ability to quite a number of things including Chess. I bet my rating goes down close to 100 points when I am low on B12 or some other vitamin imbalance.
23 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFirst, that is not an argument, but rather just an unsubstantiated assertion. To provide an actual argument, you need to provide some premises that go together to collectively support some conclusion.
my argument is that the materialist has reduced the human experience to electrochemical impulses and biological mechanisms.
Second, I would recommend you do more background study on the topic of materialism (or physicalism) as a metaphysical thesis. It "reduces" things to the physical domain, in the sense that it holds that all things are physical or supervene on the physical. That in no way implies a "[reduction] of the human experience" in the sense you intend the term 'reduce' here, which is in a deflationary sense that effectively hollows out the actual content of human experience. There is a basic distinction here that evidently has escaped your attention. If, for example, one claims that, say, human love can be explained in physical terms, in no way does that hollow out the actual content of human loving attitudes. To think otherwise is a notional confusion, since providing etiological explanation of some mental state or complex is not the same as providing the actual content of the state. We see this type of confusion time and time again, such as when one makes the absurd claim that giving an evolutionary explanation to things like, say, love or compassion or creativity or artistry, etc, etc, is to "reduce" and undermine and hollow these venerable notions out.
Third, this is a very general "argument" you are making toward the subject of materialism at large. It's not a claim that you are going to be able to defend by appealing to some isolated instances like the comments of Nigel Short on some matter. For disclosure, I am not familiar with what Short stated on the matter; you did not provide any actual quotes to clarify this; and it would be completely irrelevant towards supporting this general claim of yours against materialism, anyway. Regardless of what boneheaded remarks Short made (supposing they were boneheaded), you still need to make an actual argument.
23 Apr 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe Holy Bible warns against overly indulging is strong drink and even prohibits the drinking of fermented drinks in some cases. Drunkenness is always condemned. However, the apostle Paul recommended drinking a little wine for ones infirmities and using moderation in all things. Whether this wine is of the fermented or unfermented variety is not clear from the text. However, you might want to experiment with drinking a little wine of both the fermented and unfermented kind (grape juice) to see if it provides any improvement in your ability to think in a chess game. I haven't ever tried that, but I have tried orange juice in my early years of playing chess and I seemed to play better.
For some reason I did not think of this when writing my last post. Alcohol consumption is also known to affect chess playing ability. I think Robbie would struggle to find a non-materialist explanation for why that is.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Apr 15
Originally posted by LemonJelloYes. This is what I was trying to say. But much more elegantly put.
First, that is not an argument, but rather just an unsubstantiated assertion. To provide an actual argument, you need to provide some premises that go together to collectively support some conclusion.
Second, I would recommend you do more background study on the topic of materialism (or physicalism) as a metaphysical thesis. It "reduces" things to th ...[text shortened]... remarks Short made (supposing they were boneheaded), you still need to make an actual argument.
23 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThis is a new direction for you, and I have to say, it's yet another annoying one. I've seen you also pushing this agenda in other threads here too lately.
The Holy Bible warns against overly indulging is strong drink and even prohibits the drinking of fermented drinks in some cases. Drunkenness is always condemned. However, the apostle Paul recommended drinking a little wine for ones infirmities and using moderation in all things. Whether this wine is of the fermented or unfermented variety is not clear from ...[text shortened]... t, but I have tried orange juice in my early years of playing chess and I seemed to play better.
Originally posted by LemonJelloHe did provide a premise, a biological one (the disparity between men's minds and woman's minds), how you could have failed to notice it i cannot say. He concluded by sating that this disparity was why women had not been able to compete at the same level of men and provided a statistical basis, ELO rating of modern chess players. I would advise that you find and read Nigel Shorts statement and please dont offer me any advice. I have my own mind and my own definitions and those thoughts I can assure you are crystal clear. His statement is entirely reflective of many quacked out statements the result of a purely materialistic perspective.
First, that is not an argument, but rather just an unsubstantiated assertion. To provide an actual argument, you need to provide some premises that go together to collectively support some conclusion.
Second, I would recommend you do more background study on the topic of materialism (or physicalism) as a metaphysical thesis. It "reduces" things to th ...[text shortened]... remarks Short made (supposing they were boneheaded), you still need to make an actual argument.
23 Apr 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeyou complied a heap of straw, no one was saying that there is magic involved, no one was claiming there were two minds. The claim was that the materialist in this case had made a an unfounded comment based on some kind of biological basis, that by attempting to evaluate the cognitive process by reducing it to a purely material level he committed the greatest error of judgement. The human experience can no more be described by biological processes than you can ask why the universe came into existence by staring through a telescope.
Yes. This is what I was trying to say. But much more elegantly put.
23 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou clearly missed the point entirely. As I already said, whatever daft claims Short made, they are irrelevant to the soundness of your own general argument against materialism. Do you not remember the exchange where twhitehead asked you what argument you are trying to put forth; and you responded with a general claim that materialism effectively hollows out notions that we hold as integral to the human experience? Well, I am responding directly to that claim that you yourself stated constitutes the argument you are attempting to make in this thread. Still with me so far? As I mentioned, the "argument" that you cited in response to twhitehead's question is not actually a substantive argument, but rather a heretofore unsubstantiated claim. Further, this claim is false and wrapped up in the notional confusion that I described in my previous post.
He did provide a premise, a biological one (the disparity between men's minds and woman's minds), how you could have failed to notice it i cannot say. He concluded by sating that this disparity was why women had not been able to compete at the same level of men and provided a statistical basis, ELO rating of modern chess players. I would advise tha ...[text shortened]... rely reflective of many quacked out statements the result of a purely materialistic perspective.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you complied a heap of straw, no one was saying that there is magic involved, no one was claiming there were two minds. The claim was that the materialist in this case had made a an unfounded comment based on some kind of biological basis, that by attempting to evaluate the cognitive process by reducing it to a purely material level he committed the ...[text shortened]... processes than you can ask why the universe came into existence by staring through a telescope.
... The claim was that the materialist in this case had made a an unfounded comment based on some kind of biological basis, ...
"The Materialist"... Who is this person?
Oh... You mean all people who believe that the world is purely made up of matter and energy following the laws of physics,
with no magic/supernatural/spiritual/dualist/ect elements or factors involved... [or something along those lines]
Well, assuming that this guy does believe such things, that doesn't mean that every argument he, or anyone else
who is a 'materialist', is correct or well founded.
You basically seem to be saying "A 'Materialist' made an argument/proposed a hypothesis that I believe is wrong and thus
all 'Materialists' and materialism is wrong."...
Which as is being multiply pointed out is complete bunk.
Materialism being true does not automatically validate any argument [allegedly] based in materialistic principles.
So the 'fact' that you have here what looks like a bad argument that is in part of a materialist nature doesn't in any way
demonstrate that materialism is itself at fault.
The human experience can no more be described by biological processes than you can ask why the universe came into existence by staring through a telescope.
Actually you can learn a great deal about the universe and how it formed by "staring through a telescope"...
although most of the 'staring' is done by CCD's of various sorts.
It's only part of the picture, you get other bits by doing particle physics for example, but it's a major facet of
building a picture of the universe and learning of it's origins.
It helps tell us [for example] how old the visible universe is, how big it is, what it's made of... All kinds of useful and
important information.
As LJ says, you cannot [currently, or possibly ever] explain or describe the beauty of a sunset in terms of
electrical and chemical interactions in the brain, or the structure and interaction of neurons caused by photons
entering the eye. But those neurons, made of chemicals, are what is creating that conciousness that is having the
experience.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe difference in performance at the game of chess between men and women is not a biological fact but a sociological fact. Any appeal to biology is spurious.
The problem for Nigel was that it was immediately deemed as being sexist. He was not being sexist in the slightest, merely stating what he knew to be biological facts but it was a poor argument to make for so many reasons.
However, if the OP means anything it seems to imply that sexist thinking, including an appeal to biological differences between men and women, is a specifically materialist failing. The reality of course is that the major religions make very strong appeals to biology in order to provide spurious grounds for entirely cultural sex differences. If the story from Genesis of the creation of Adam and Eve is not concerned directly with their biological differences (and seeking to explain them) then what is it about at all? Admittedly Genesis falls short of painting them respectively blue and pink, but that is something that is soon resolved through approved interpretation I suspect.
Sexism is cultural and social. All major religions have a long and entrenched tradition of sexism. So does macho materialism and macho science. Any and every appeal to biology is spurious and a distraction.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Apr 15
Originally posted by finneganUm, lets not go overboard here.
The difference in performance at the game of chess between men and women is not a biological fact but a sociological fact. Any appeal to biology is spurious.
However, if the OP means anything it seems to imply that sexist thinking, including an appeal to biological differences between men and women, is a specifically materialist failing. The reality o ...[text shortened]... o materialism and macho science. Any and every appeal to biology is spurious and a distraction.
There are biological differences between men and women, and they are not all to do with reproduction.
It is certainly true that many, if not most, claims of biological differences 'explaining' differing performance
or preference between men and women are likely bunk, but not all of them are.
We can refute and condemn this kind of nonsense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
25 Apr 15
Originally posted by finneganYes its not only spurious but pure folly. Biology is simply not enough to explain the human experience nor the phenomena in the disparity between male and female players. It cannot be reduced to electrochemical impulses through our synapses.
The difference in performance at the game of chess between men and women is not a biological fact but a sociological fact. Any appeal to biology is spurious.
However, if the OP means anything it seems to imply that sexist thinking, including an appeal to biological differences between men and women, is a specifically materialist failing. The reality o ...[text shortened]... o materialism and macho science. Any and every appeal to biology is spurious and a distraction.
I don't think that I am saying that its exclusively a materialistic failing, simply that this kind of materialistic reasoning can lead to some rather absurd claims.