What are the best arguments against reductive materialism?
>>791013
It's just a perspective.
Science has yet to prove the nature of reality and mind to be reducible to natural processes -- although it certainly seems to hint toward that. Even if it were true, moreover, the language of cognitive science is young and the brain is a very complex organ and it might be more useful and expedient to talk about minds using older more time-tested conceptual terminology from other schools of philosophy.
Platonic forms.
>>791013
u cant rilly no nuffin
>>791013
There are none. The only thing you can respond is
>b-but we can't know that!!
People are, for some reason, really fucking uncomfortable with materialism.
It is reductionist. Name says it all really. It's the autist's conception of the world, compartmentalizing it into disparate pieces that mean nothing alone. As was said earlier, it's only a perspective, and one that does not account for the entirety of reality.
The best tactics is driving every single argument into epistemological and ontological rut. Smoking blunt helps too aids this process.
>>791136
Well, well, well. Lets hear what reality is really about then.
>>791013
>What are the best arguments against reductive materialism?
Who cares.
>>791191
What?
>>791210
If materialism doesn't show the whole picture, what does?
>>791013
1. Reductive materialism relies on circular logic to justify itself- ie. problem of induction/ nothing can really be justified.
2. Consciousness. Even if we can correlate all of our conscious experience to specific material brain states, it doesn't explain how we experience the world, how thought simply manifests from causal relationships. AKA the "why aren't we zombies" argument. Or at least, why aren't I a zombie, as you can't prove solipsism isn't real, we just assume it isn't
>>791214
Divine revelation.
>>791126
>what is the hard problem of consciouness
>>791230
Which divine revelation?
>>791214
literally every other system ever, you ok m8
>>791234
The true kind.
>>791234
>this meme again
>>791214
I don't know and I don't claim to know. Whether or not reductionism does account for everything remains to be seen. I do have my suspicions though.
Property dualism and emergence
