Nigel Short and the folly of the materialst

As chess players it has come to our attention that British Grandmaster Nigel Short made a claim about the strength of women players in comparison to men on the basis of a biological argument, that being that men are more biologically fitted to play chess.

It is of course an epic fail for a number of reasons. For example the disparity in the number of male players to female, the fact that Short himself has been outplayed by women and probably the most damning that there is no emphatically right or wrong way to play chess making any biological argument quite unsound.

The reasoning however is rather familiar. A biological argument is being utilised in order to make statements about something as complex as the cognitive process in chess. We theists see this kind of reasoning all the time from rampant materialist intent on reducing every aspect of the human experience to biological processes and it fails on every level.

What happens when the standard value of chess pieces ceases to govern and chess becomes a mode of self expression, an art form the players engaging in a metaphysical battle and the cumulative display of reason, logic and experience triumphs, where intuition plays a major part? What of the biological disparity then? Thus it appears to me that Short and all other base materials commit the greatest folly in attempting to reduce the human experience to mere biological processes.

Like pretty much all examples in this vein, this is what happens when someone
misuses and/or fails to understand scientific ideas and uses them to prop up
their own prejudices.

It has little to nothing to do with what science actually says on the issue.


In much the same way that it's only possible to say that the Nazis used Darwinian
evolutionary ideas to support their actions/position if you are completely and utterly
ignorant of Darwinian Evolution, and what the Nazis were claiming.

The reality is that what the Nazis were talking about bears almost no relation whatsoever
to what the science of the day [or subsequently] said.



We are the product of our brains, the physical and electrochemical structures that
sit inside our skulls [with nerves running all through our bodies] the patterns and
structures of which determine who we are and what we think.
Ability at chess, like any other ability and the thoughts that go along with that, is
determined by those structures [which can change over time].

There is nothing 'immaterial' needed or observed in the real world needed to explain
what is going on. no animating life force or guiding spirit.

However, when matter comes together to form a living organism the resulting life form
is so much more than just the sum of it's parts. It has so many emergent properties and
complex behaviours that require explaining and understanding that cannot be [practically]
explained or understood by simply understanding the movements and properties of the
underlying atoms and molecules. But those behaviours and properties are CAUSED by those
atoms and molecules and the 'simple' physical laws they obey.

Just as the weather/climate is caused by the 'simple' physical interactions of fundamental
particles according to the laws of physics, but you cannot make a weather forecast that
way. You have to have different models to explain and understand the large scale implications
of countless numbers of these molecular interactions.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Like pretty much all examples in this vein, this is what happens when someone
misuses and/or fails to understand scientific ideas and uses them to prop up
their own prejudices.

It has little to nothing to do with what science actually says on the issue.


In much the same way that it's only possible to say that the Nazis used Darwinian
evolut ...[text shortened]... understand the large scale implications
of countless numbers of these molecular interactions.

Wrong, there is intuition and experience as well as self expression and the employment of art. These elements are beyond the merely physical. We are not the same as machines, the culmination of switches of on and offs, ones and zeros, we are sentient functioning human beings which experience life.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Wrong, there is intuition and experience as well as self expression and the employment of art. These elements are beyond the merely physical.

All caused by the simple physical interactions of atoms and chemicals in your brain.

There is no other fundamental element needed or observed.

Originally posted by googlefudge
All caused by the simple physical interactions of atoms and chemicals in your brain.

There is no other fundamental element needed or observed.

external experiences are not caused by simple physical interactions of atoms and chemicals, they are the consequence of external factors which the mind stores in the subconscious and which can be utilised at any given moment by the mind. It is the same with intuition, its is also based on experience and what is stored in the subconscious mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Wrong, there is intuition and experience as well as self expression and the employment of art. These elements are beyond the merely physical. We are not the same as machines, the culmination of switches of on and offs, ones and zeros, we are sentient functioning human beings which experience life.

[replying to the edit]

Well we are not digital computers, but so what?

That doesn't prove we are not physical, only that we are differently physical.

The behaviours caused by a few hundred billion neurons with hundreds of trillions
of connections between them can be incredibly complex and varied.

You don't need any magic animating force or mysterious souls, or anything beyond
the physical structures and patterns we can see to explain who and what we are.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
external experiences are not caused by simple physical interactions of atoms and chemicals, they are the consequence of external factors which the mind stores in the subconscious and which can be utilised at any given moment by the mind. It is the same with intuition, its is also based on experience and what is stored in the subconscious mind.

Our experiences, our memories, our thoughts, are all stored and happen in and
as a consequence of the physical structures of our brain.

If you watch a working brain in a FMRI scanner you can see the subconscious
processes come together to create a concious thought.

You can see people make decisions subconsciously and then have the concious
experience of them.

There is no magic going on [in the traditional sense of the word].

It's all just stuff behaving in very complex ways.


And there is no 'subconscious mind' as opposed to a 'concious mind', you have one
brain that does both.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Thus it appears to me that Short and all other base materials commit the greatest folly in attempting to reduce the human experience to mere biological processes.

I honestly failed to understand what, if anything, your argument actually is. Could you possibly try and rephrase it in a more coherent manner?
You seem to be claiming that winning at chess isn't everything and that somehow this makes Short wrong about how good women are at chess due to biological factors - which doesn't seem to make much sense to me at all.

Maybe to clarify, you could give us your own stance on the brain:
1. Do you accept that cutting bits out of the brain affects both brain function and memory?
2. Do you accept that certain drugs affect both brain function and memory?
3. Do you accept that character and memory are directly a result of the physical structure of the brain?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I honestly failed to understand what, if anything, your argument actually is. Could you possibly try and rephrase it in a more coherent manner?
You seem to be claiming that winning at chess isn't everything and that somehow this makes Short wrong about how good women are at chess due to biological factors - which doesn't seem to make much sense to me at ...[text shortened]... u accept that character and memory are directly a result of the physical structure of the brain?

my argument is that the materialist has reduced the human experience to electrochemical impulses and biological mechanisms.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my argument is that the materialist has reduced the human experience to electrochemical impulses and biological mechanisms.

You are still not being clear. Are you saying that 'the materialist' does not think human experience exists, or are you saying the materialist thinks that human experience is a result of electrochemical impulses and biological mechanisms?
And how does this have anything to do with the things you said in the OP and Nigel Short?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As chess players it has come to our attention that British Grandmaster Nigel Short made a claim about the strength of women players in comparison to men on the basis of a biological argument, that being that men are more biologically fitted to play chess.

It is of course an epic fail for a number of reasons. For example the disparity in the number ...[text shortened]... it the greatest folly in attempting to reduce the human experience to mere biological processes.

Good thing I'm not obligated to defend every argument by every person who happens to use a buzzword like 'biological', even though I think some biological arguments are valid. In other words, I can think some arguments from biology are valid, and unchanged simply because some other chucklehead makes a different (and bad) argument from biology.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are still not being clear. Are you saying that 'the materialist' does not think human experience exists, or are you saying the materialist thinks that human experience is a result of electrochemical impulses and biological mechanisms?
And how does this have anything to do with the things you said in the OP and Nigel Short?

I have made it clear three times now, if you cannot understand it ask someone for help. This is the very last time I will say it. The materialist is determined to reduce the human experience to biological mechanisms. It is pure folly to do so as Nigel Sorts ludicrous assertions prove.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Good thing I'm not obligated to defend every argument by every person who happens to use a buzzword like 'biological', even though I think some biological arguments are valid. In other words, I can think some arguments from biology are valid, and unchanged simply because some other chucklehead makes a different (and [b]bad) argument from biology.[/b]

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.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

I'm sure HE did not think that he was being sexist, but that's beside the point.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have made it clear three times now, if you cannot understand it ask someone for help. This is the very last time I will say it. The materialist is determined to reduce the human experience to biological mechanisms. It is pure folly to do so as Nigel Sorts ludicrous assertions prove.

No, you have not in fact 'made it clear'.

What you have done three times is fail to understand twhitehead's point/questions.

We get [twhitehead gets] that you don't believe that it's possible to "reduce the
human experience to biological mechanisms".

However, what he [and I frankly] don't know, is what you MEAN by "reduce the
human experience to biological mechanisms".
OR WHY you believe that 'it's pure folly to do so'
OR how the OP demonstrates any of this.


Simply repeating that sentiment 3 times does absolutely nothing to clarify what
it is you mean by it.

So having clarified that... Here are twhitehead's perfectly reasonable and unanswered
questions again.

I honestly failed to understand what, if anything, your argument actually is. Could you possibly try and rephrase it in a more coherent manner?
You seem to be claiming that winning at chess isn't everything and that somehow this makes Short wrong about how good women are at chess due to biological factors - which doesn't seem to make much sense to me at all.

Maybe to clarify, you could give us your own stance on the brain:
1. Do you accept that cutting bits out of the brain affects both brain function and memory?
2. Do you accept that certain drugs affect both brain function and memory?
3. Do you accept that character and memory are directly a result of the physical structure of the brain?

...............

Are you saying that 'the materialist' does not think human experience exists, or are you saying the materialist thinks that human experience is a result of electrochemical impulses and biological mechanisms?

And how does this have anything to do with the things you said in the OP and Nigel Short?