Originally posted by stellspalfieYou start off with this reductionist demand:
thats an extremely complicated question to answer as there are so many combinations and variables and aspects to take into consideration, it's a huge topic. so ill boil it down to what i think it the key point.
chemical reward. we pursue things that make us feel good. i think the roots of this evolutionary wise are connected to the importance of comm ...[text shortened]... the only reasons, just some of the reasons.
why do you think we appreciate and create art?
when we look at art and have an experience. what part of that experience do you feel cannot be described by physiological methods?[sic] Then when attempting to offer your own answer you make almost no reference to physiological methods. The problem of reductionism, of course, is partly this:
thats an extremely complicated question to answer as there are so many combinations and variables and aspects to take into consideration, it's a huge topic.. Indeed, it is such a complicated project to attempt an explanation of art in terms of physiology that it is considered impossible by most intelligent people. Your persistence in advocating this radically reductionist notion further falls foul of the concept of "emergent properties," for which see my post above.
At best, you offer us "chemical reward" as a possible basis for artistic appreciation, as though that had any weight to it in terms of explanatory power, somewhat neglecting the ample evidence that much art does not have the effect of making us feel good and art often has very different impacts, including intellectual and aesthetic responses to art in which the emotional response is not absent (that is never absent) but subordinate.
To say of art that it is "a form of communication" is tautological at best, bland and trite at worst. We can communicate with a snort and there are contexts where that could be rendered as art, but the quality of being "art" cannot be identified with (let alone reduced to) the quality of being a form of communication.
Our capacity for interpreting patterns as meaningful representations is by all means associated with our perceptual apparatus, including the way our brain processes perceptual inputs. Again, that is tautological. We do indeed use our perceptual apparatus to perceive art and art works by working with our perceptual apparatus. Again, that is tautological. Obviously these things are the case. But these bland, uninteresting observations of the blindingly obvious do not explain anything useful about the nature of art as distinct from, say, the sound of passing traffic or an ambulance siren or a tube of toothpaste, all of which might perhaps be incorporated as art or within art but none of which constitute art or have art as part of their nature, unless everything is art, in which case again we are losing any interest in what we are being told here.
If you wish to make a materialist argument concerning the nature of art, and that is something I would cheerfully endorse if the alternative was to accept a religious one, then you will fail as long as you tie yourself to this absurd form of reductionism.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by finneganohh dear, looks like somebody has an axe to grind. ive incurred the wrath of the eye of finnegan.
You start off with this reductionist demand:when we look at art and have an experience. what part of that experience do you feel cannot be described by physiological methods?[sic] Then when attempting to offer your own answer you make almost no reference to physiological methods. The problem of reductionism, of course, is partly this: [quo ...[text shortened]... ligious one, then you will fail as long as you tie yourself to this absurd form of reductionism.
you cover soooo many points badly, its hard to know where to start. you seem to have wanted me to write sever indepth essays, even though i clearly state its a too complex issue to cover in a forum post and in that spirit try to simplify, especially considering the person i was debating with.
you also seem to have a rather loosy goosy approach to the use of the words reductionist and tautological.
if you seriously want to discuss this, rather than nit-pick. choose a point or two at a time and ill happily discuss/debate with you.
Originally posted by stellspalfiewhy don't you address a single point that Finnegan made?
ohh dear, looks like somebody has an axe to grind. ive incurred the wrath of the eye of finnegan.
you cover soooo many points badly, its hard to know where to start. you seem to have wanted me to write sever indepth essays, even though i clearly state its a too complex issue to cover in a forum post and in that spirit try to simplify, especially cons ...[text shortened]... , rather than nit-pick. choose a point or two at a time and ill happily discuss/debate with you.
Lets keep it simple.
Is a wave (in the sea) purely a result of the movement of water molecules or is it more than that. If I read Robbie right he is saying a wave on the sea being the result of wind, which is due to the particular weather that day, which might have been affected by the recently built wind farm which was put up by a particular company for a specific reason is clearly more than just the movement of water molecules.
So would a materialist say: no, the wave is purely the movement of water molecules?
Originally posted by twhiteheadFinnegan rather excellently explained the situation in a far more erudite and eloquent way than this rustic farmer. Here is what the argument amounts to in my mind.
Lets keep it simple.
Is a wave (in the sea) purely a result of the movement of water molecules or is it more than that. If I read Robbie right he is saying a wave on the sea being the result of wind, which is due to the particular weather that day, which might have been affected by the recently built wind farm which was put up by a particular company for ...[text shortened]... molecules.
So would a materialist say: no, the wave is purely the movement of water molecules?
Short was not being sexist he was simply utilising a rather absurd reductionist argument (that the human experience can be reduced/explained by references to a base biological state which seeks in this instance to explain the disparity between men and women in the matter of playing chess) It fails because it does not take into consideration emergent properties ( that we are more than the summation of electrochemical impulses in our minds) 😀
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo, are you going to address the wave question at all, or will it go against your philosophy to do so?
Finnegan rather excellently explained the situation in a far more erudite and eloquent way than this rustic farmer. Here is what the argument amounts to in my mind.
Short was not being sexist he was simply utilising a rather absurd reductionist argument (that the human experience can be reduced/explained by references to a base biological state w ...[text shortened]... nt properties ( that we are more than the summation of electrochemical impulses in our minds) 😀
If Short had instead stated that drunk people do not play chess as well as when they are sober, would he have been wrong for the same reasons? If not, why not?
Originally posted by twhiteheadWaves are far as I understand are simply the manifestation of energy. They are normally generated by energy from the wind. They may be generated from some other source, like the underground movement of tectonic plates as in the case of a tsunami. Waves are not human beings and the analogy so remote from the human experience itself the result of emergent properties as to be rendered irrelevant. A materialist and anyone else for that matter would be right to say, waves are the manifestation of energy.
Lets keep it simple.
Is a wave (in the sea) purely a result of the movement of water molecules or is it more than that. If I read Robbie right he is saying a wave on the sea being the result of wind, which is due to the particular weather that day, which might have been affected by the recently built wind farm which was put up by a particular company for ...[text shortened]... molecules.
So would a materialist say: no, the wave is purely the movement of water molecules?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieShort made a deeply sexist argument. I disagree with you on that already.
Finnegan rather excellently explained the situation in a far more erudite and eloquent way than this rustic farmer. Here is what the argument amounts to in my mind.
Short was not being sexist he was simply utilising a rather absurd reductionist argument (that the human experience can be reduced/explained by references to a base biological state w ...[text shortened]... nt properties ( that we are more than the summation of electrochemical impulses in our minds) 😀
In support of his sexist and irrational argument, he appealed to "biological differences" between men and women as evidence supporting his sexist prejudice.
You (Robbie) argue that his error is his reliance on "materialism" but I do not concede that a materialist of any intelligence and education would agree with Nigel Short. In fact, biological differences are only relevant in the event that Nigel Short or any other sexist can demonstrate a reason why. Appealing in this way to biology or even to Science is not an argument - it is a rhetorical device.
Materialism does not require appeal to such inappropriate and hollow reductionist concepts because materialism can provide far more meaningful accounts of phenomena in the world by using the concept of "emergent properties" and by taking into account the concept of "levels of explanation," both of which I defined and explained above.
In the case of sex differences in chess, I have argued that biological explanation is totally irrelevant. We require social (sociological - social science) explanations for social phenomena and it is rarely going to be useful to divert our effort into a search for a more fundamental level of explanation, whether that is biological, chemical, or physical, even though all are attributes of the material world within which men and women play chess. Appealing to the wrong level of explanation to address a problem is not science - it is just plain wrong and that is unscientific.
Social science is scientific and starting from the pioneering work of Emile Durkheim has conformed increasingly well to the scientific method. Karl Marx was another early theorist seeking and demonstrating the scope for materialist explanations of social phenomena. Both worked in the Nineteenth Century and my remarks do not imply or require that either of these pioneers remains the last word on any subject whatever. They do remain interesting and their pioneer status has to be recognised. We must also refer to much more than a century of work since.
This is all sidetracked a little by stellspalfie, who in my opinion spoils the materialist case ( and hence the argument AGAINST your opinion Robbie) by insisting on a deeply reductionists concept and demanding that it be accepted. Well I am on the side of Science and atheism, but not on the side of irrational arguments.
It is pleasant, by the way, to be able to strongly disagree with another poster (yourself, Robbie) while retaining a good natured {albeit online) relationship.
(Whatever way you vote in May, Scotland will hopefully assist in giving Cameron his p45 so he can spend more time with his tens of millions of inherited and unearned pounds. Not a topic on this largely American site I know but I thought I'd mention it. )
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganThis is all sidetracked a little by stellspalfie, who in my opinion spoils the materialist case ( and hence the argument AGAINST your opinion Robbie) by insisting on a deeply reductionists concept and demanding that it be accepted
Short made a deeply sexist argument. I disagree with you on that already.
In support of his sexist and irrational argument, he appealed to "biological differences" between men and women as evidence supporting his sexist prejudice.
You (Robbie) argue that his error is his reliance on "materialism" but I do not concede that a materialist of any intel ...[text shortened]... ned pounds. Not a topic on this largely American site I know but I thought I'd mention it. )[/i]
which reductionist argument would that be? i seem to remember stating (in this thread several times) that human biology (albeit the origins of all thought and emotion) cannot alone explain everything....hardly a reductionist argument is it?
Originally posted by finneganAwesome, its like having a big brother so that when I get messed with big brother comes along and by sheer force of argument warns them to get too wide. You are like blackbeetle in the sense that your posts are an education but much less cryptic than beetles 😀
Short made a deeply sexist argument. I disagree with you on that already.
In support of his sexist and irrational argument, he appealed to "biological differences" between men and women as evidence supporting his sexist prejudice.
You (Robbie) argue that his error is his reliance on "materialism" but I do not concede that a materialist of any intel ...[text shortened]... ned pounds. Not a topic on this largely American site I know but I thought I'd mention it. )[/i]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI see you are a materialist reductionist at heart.
Waves are far as I understand are simply the manifestation of energy.
Waves are not human beings and the analogy so remote from the human experience itself the result of emergent properties as to be rendered irrelevant.
They may be irrelevant to you, but they are quite important to me. I am trying to understand what you mean by 'emergent properties' and 'reductionist' etc. So, are you saying that waves are decisively not emergent properties?
What about something more complex like a computer program for example. Is that an emergent property, or can it be fully explained as electrons flowing through a CPU?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes its not easy being a reductionist materialist in today's moral climate 😀
I see you are a materialist reductionist at heart.
[b]Waves are not human beings and the analogy so remote from the human experience itself the result of emergent properties as to be rendered irrelevant.
They may be irrelevant to you, but they are quite important to me. I am trying to understand what you mean by 'emergent properties' and 'reductio ...[text shortened]... . Is that an emergent property, or can it be fully explained as electrons flowing through a CPU?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieIt need not be a reductionist argument. One of many questions might be to define what we mean by a biological account of anything. When a biologist studies animal behaviour, it is unusual that their work requires a laboratory these days. They are more likely to sit out in the field and carefully observe and classify territorial disputes or mating patterns. A biologist studying the behaviour of male and female chess players could make very similar observations, but their work would be classified as sociological or social psychology, without being less scientific for all that.
[b]This is all sidetracked a little by stellspalfie, who in my opinion spoils the materialist case ( and hence the argument AGAINST your opinion Robbie) by insisting on a deeply reductionists concept and demanding that it be accepted
which reductionist argument would that be? i seem to remember stating (in this thread several times) that human b ...[text shortened]... ll thought and emotion) cannot alone explain everything....hardly a reductionist argument is it?[/b]
However, take your phrase as follows: "when we look at art and have an experience. what part of that experience do you feel cannot be described by physiological methods?" Does that not have a reductionist ring to your ear? It does to mine.
And what I initially objected to of course was your suggestion that biology has any relevance whatever in respect of Nigel Short's blather about sex differences in playing chess. I also seem to recall inviting you to just drop the matter as it is not that big a deal and we are more likely to agree than disagree on this forum. It seems unseemly for two atheists to fall out when we could be dismantling the monstrous constructs of religious nihilism.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by finneganActually it was me you aimed that accusation at, and not stellspalfie, who just agreed with me.
It need not be a reductionist argument. One of many questions might be to define what we mean by a biological account of anything. When a biologist studies animal behaviour, it is unusual that their work requires a laboratory these days. They are more likely to sit out in the field and carefully observe and classify territorial disputes or mating patterns. ...[text shortened]... theists to fall out when we could be dismantling the monstrous constructs of religious nihilism.
I never did actually suggest "that biology has any relevance whatever in respect of Nigel Short's
blather about sex differences in playing chess."
YOU incorrectly accused me of suggesting that.
I have yet to hear you retract that accusation. Which is what it will take for me to "just drop it".
I don't mind disagreeing on a topic.
I do mind being accused of saying something I never did.
We do otherwise often agree, and I do typically like your posts.
Although I feel we would fall out politically... So do try to keep that out of the Spirituality forum.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganIt need not be a reductionist argument
It need not be a reductionist argument. One of many questions might be to define what we mean by a biological account of anything. When a biologist studies animal behaviour, it is unusual that their work requires a laboratory these days. They are more likely to sit out in the field and carefully observe and classify territorial disputes or mating patterns. ...[text shortened]... theists to fall out when we could be dismantling the monstrous constructs of religious nihilism.
it wasnt.
When a biologist studies animal behaviour, it is unusual that their work requires a laboratory these days. They are more likely to sit out in the field and carefully observe and classify territorial disputes or mating patterns. A biologist studying the behaviour of male and female chess players could make very similar observations,
i completely agree.
However, take your phrase as follows: "when we look at art and have an experience. what part of that experience do you feel cannot be described by physiological methods?" Does that not have a reductionist ring to your ear? It does to mine.
thats because you were presuming where i was going with the question and jumped in because you were too eager to dish out some justice because i criticised your response to googlefudge.
nd what I initially objected to of course was your suggestion that biology has any relevance whatever in respect of Nigel Short's blather about sex differences in playing chess
that wasnt me it was googlefudge and he didnt say that. just as you have done with me you jumped to conclusions about what you thought he was saying rather than accepting what he actually said.
i agree with googlefudge, i normally enjoy your posts (and agree with them) i also probably fall in a similar political spectrum to you as well. still though, we should challenge what we think is wrong, rather than who's in our gang.