He explains why reductionism is ridiculous:
In an essay-length blog post, philosopher Edward Feser (pictured) addresses Chapter 5 of theoretical physicist Brian Greene‘s new book, Until the End of Time: Mind, Matter, and Our Search for Meaning in an Evolving Universe (2020). Greene attempts to show that the mind can reasonably be understood as a collection of particles governed by mathematical laws and Feser says, no, it can’t.
“Greene’s fallacy is like that of someone who says that, since a map is enormously useful for getting around a certain bit of terrain, predicting what you’ll see when you reach this or that part of it, etc., it follows that there is nothing more to the terrain that what is captured by the map. As Alfred Korzybski once said, “the map is not the territory.” If only more physicists were capable of seeing what a crackpot linguist could! – Edward Feser, “The Particle Collection That Fancied Itself a Physicist” at Edward Feser Blog (August 20, 2020)”
News, “Why the brain can’t be understood simply in terms of particles” at Mind Matters News
You may also enjoy: Michael Egnor’s dialogues with Ed Feser and some of Feser’s other comments on questions of the day:
Remarkably, a simple triangle can disprove materialism Philosopher of mind Edward Feser and neurosurgeon Michael Egnor chat about the essential immateriality of our minds.
Knowledge is power, sort of… If that’s all knowledge is, the resulting science is bound to be limited, says Michael Egnor. He is reflecting on philosopher Edward Feser’s recent, rather sharp review of cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress
and
If computers are intelligent, climbing a tree is flying. That, says Edward Feser, is the take-home message from Gary Smith’s book, The AI Delusion
Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd