Movatterモバイル変換

Jaegwon Kim argues that unreduced mental causes are excluded from efficacy because physical causes are sufficient in themselves. One response to thiscausalexclusion argument is to embrace some form of overdetermination. In this paper I consider two forms of overdetermination. Independent overdetermination suggests that two individually sufficient causes bring about one effect. This model fails because the sufficiency of one cause renders the other cause unnecessary. Dependent overdetermination suggests that a physical cause is necessary and sufficient for (...) a given effect, but it necessitates a mental cause of the effect as well. This model fails because the necessity of the mental cause renders the physical cause individually insufficient. (shrink)

Direct download(6 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   9 citations  

The first part of this paper presents an argument showing that the currently most highly acclaimed interventionist theory of causation, i.e. the one advanced by Woodward, excludes supervening macro properties from having acausal influence on effects of their micro supervenience bases. Moreover, this interventionistexclusion argument is demonstrated to rest on weaker premises than classicalexclusion arguments. The second part then discusses a weakening of interventionism that Woodward suggests. This weakened version of interventionism turns out either (...) to be inapplicable to cases of downward causation involving supervening macro properties or to render correspondingcausal claims meaningless. In sum, the paper argues that, contrary to what many non-reductive physicalists claim, interventionism does not render non-reductive physicalism immune to the problem ofcausalexclusion. (shrink)

Direct download(6 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   56 citations  

TheCausalExclusion Problem is raised in many domains, including in the metaphysics of macroscopic objects. If there is a complete explanation of macroscopic effects in terms of the microscopic entities that compose macroscopic objects, then the efficacy of the macroscopic will be threatened withexclusion. I argue that we can avoid the problem if we accept that macroscopic objects are ontically vague. Then, it is indeterminate which collection of microscopic entities compose them, and so information about (...) microscopic entities is insufficient to provide a complete explanation of certain properties of macroscopic objects. After outlining this solution, I consider several objections. (shrink)

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

In this paper I reconstruct and evaluate the validity of two versions ofcausalexclusion arguments within the theory ofcausal Bayes nets. I argue that supervenience relations formally behave likecausal relations. If this is correct, then it turns out that both versions of theexclusion argument are valid when assuming thecausal Markov condition and thecausal minimality condition. I also investigate some consequences for the recent discussion ofcausal (...) class='Hi'>exclusion arguments in the light of an interventionist theory of causation such as Woodward's (2003) and discuss a possible objection to mycausal Bayes net reconstruction. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   45 citations  

Causalexclusion arguments are taken to threaten the autonomy of the special sciences, and thecausal efficacy of mental properties. A recent line of response to these arguments has appealed to “independently plausible” and “well grounded” theories of causation to rebut key premises. In this paper I consider two papers which proceed in this vein and show that they share a common feature: they both require causes to be proportional to their effects. I argue that this feature (...) is a bug, and one that generalises: any attempt to rescue the autonomy of the special sciences, or the efficacy of the mental, fromexclusion worries had better not look to proportionality for help. (shrink)

Direct download(5 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   28 citations  

It is quite obvious why the antireductionist picture of mental causation that rests on supervenience is an attractive theory. On the one hand, it secures uniqueness of the mental; on the other hand, it tries to place the mental in our world in a way that is compatible with the physicalist view. However, Kim reminds us that anti-reductionists face the following dilemma: either mental properties havecausal powers or they do not. If they have them, we risk a violation (...) of thecausal closure of the physical domain; if they do not have them, we embrace epiphenomenalism, which denies any sort ofcausal powers to the mental. So, either we violate thecausal closure of physics, or we end up with epiphenomenalism. The first two sections of the article describe the problem ofcausalexclusion and Kim’scausal dilemma. The last two introduce Horgan’s antireductionist answer and my objection to that answer. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Some non-reductionists claim that so-called ‘exclusion arguments’ against their position rely on a notion ofcausal sufficiency that is particularly problematic. I argue that such concerns about the role ofcausal sufficiency inexclusion arguments are relatively superficial since exclusionists can address them by reformulatingexclusion arguments in terms of physical sufficiency. The resultingexclusion arguments still face familiar problems, but these are not related to the choice betweencausal sufficiency and physical sufficiency. (...) The upshot is that objections to the notion ofcausal sufficiency can be answered in a straightforward fashion and that such objections therefore do not pose a serious threat toexclusion arguments. (shrink)

Direct download(5 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   6 citations  

Nonreductive physicalists endorse the principle of mental causation, according to which some events have mental causes: Sid climbs the hill because he wants to. Nonreductive physicalists also endorse the principle of physicalcausal completeness, according to which physical events have sufficient physical causes: Sid climbs the hill because a complex neural process in his brain triggered his climbing. Critics typically level thecausalexclusion problem against this nonreductive physicalist model, according to which the physical cause is a (...) sufficient cause of the behavioural effect, so the mental cause is excluded from causally influencing Sid’s behaviour. In this paper I demonstrate how numerous nonreductive physicalists have responded to thecausalexclusion problem by weakening the principle of physicalcausal completeness in numerous ways. The result: either numerous nonreductive physicalist solutions fail on account of the fact that they do not satisfy a robustly defined principle of physicalcausal completeness, or there is an accelerating trend of solving thecausalexclusion problem by suitably weakening the principle of physicalcausal completeness. (shrink)

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   3 citations  

Emergent properties are intended to be genuine, natural higher level causally efficacious properties irreducible to physical ones. At the same time they are somehow dependent on or 'emergent from' complexes of physical properties, so that the doctrine of emergent properties is not supposed to be returned to dualism. The doctrine faces two challenges: (i) to explain precisely how it is that such properties emerge - what is emergence; (ii) to explain how they sidestep theexclusion problem - how it (...) is that there is room for these properties to be causally efficacious, given thecausal completeness of the physical. In this paper I explain how functional properties can meet both challenges. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   7 citations  

Hitchcock demonstrated that the validity ofcausalexclusion arguments as well as the plausibility of several of their premises hinges on the specific theory of causation endorsed. In this paper I show that the validity ofcausalexclusion arguments—if represented within the theory ofcausal Bayes nets the way Gebharter suggests—actually requires much weaker premises than the ones which are typically assumed. In particular, neither completeness of the physical domain nor the no overdetermination assumption are (...) required. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   4 citations  

There is a growing consensus among philosophers of science that scientific endeavors of understanding the human mind or the brain exhibit explanatory pluralism. Relatedly, several philosophers have in recent years defended an interventionist approach to causation that leads to a kind ofcausal pluralism. In this paper, I explore the consequences of these recent developments in philosophy of science for some of the central debates in philosophy of mind. First, I argue that if we adopt explanatory pluralism and the (...) interventionist approach to causation, our understanding of physicalism has to change, and this leads to what I call pluralistic physicalism. Secondly, I show that this pluralistic physicalism is not endangered by thecausalexclusion argument. (shrink)

Direct download(6 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   30 citations  

In this contribution, I critically discuss the thesis, advanced by some recent writers, that nonreductive physicalists can solve the problem ofcausalexclusion by resorting to the metaphysical notion of grounding. After discussing the many problems confronted by very recent versions of this proposal, I conclude that a version of Nonreductive Physicalism framed in terms of a notion of realization of properties is in a better position than Grounding Physicalism in order to successfully deal with a notoriously complex (...) metaphysical issue such as thecausalexclusion problem. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

In a series of influential articles (Kim 1989b, 1992b, 1993a and 1998), Jaegwon Kim has developed a strong argument against nonreductive physicalism as a plausible solution to mental causation. The argument is commonly called the ’causalexclusion argument’, and it has become, over the years, one of the most serious threats to the nonreductivist point of view. In the first part of this paper I offer a careful reconstruction and detailed discussion of theexclusion argument. In the (...) second part I show why some important objections to it actually fail. (shrink)

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   7 citations  

Jaegwon Kim’scausalexclusion argument says that if all physical effects have sufficient physical causes, and no physical effects are caused twice over by distinct physical and mental causes, there cannot be any irreducible mental causes. In addition, Kim has argued that the nonreductive physicalist must give up completeness, and embrace the possibility of downward causation. This paper argues first that this extra argument relies on a principle of property individuation, which the nonreductive physicalist need not accept, and (...) second that once we get clear on overdetermination, there is a way to reject theexclusion principle upon which thecausalexclusion argument depends, but third that this should not lead to the belief that mental causation is easily accounted for in terms of counterfactual dependencies. (shrink)

Direct download(7 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   34 citations  

In TheCausalExclusion Problem, the popular strategy of abandoning any one of the principles constituting thecausalexclusion problem is considered, but ultimately rejected. The metaphysical foundations undergirding thecausalexclusion problem are then explored, revealing that thecausalexclusion problem cannot be dislodged by undermining its metaphysical foundations – as some are in the habit of doing. Finally, the significant difficulties associated with the bevy of contemporary nonreductive solutions, from supervenience (...) to emergentism, are expanded upon. While conducting this survey of contemporary options, however, two novel approaches are introduced, both of which may resolve thecausalexclusion problem from within a nonreductive physicalist paradigm. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

A critical analysis of recent interventionist responses to thecausalexclusion problem is presented. It is argued that the response can indeed offer a solution to the problem, but one that is based on renouncing the multiple realizability thesis. The account amounts to the rejection of nonreductive physicalism and would thus be unacceptable to many. It is further shown that if the multiple realizability thesis is brought back in and conjoined with the interventionist notion of causation, inter-level causation (...) is ruled out altogether. (shrink)

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   10 citations  

Thecausal/explanatoryexclusion argument is one of the principal weapons against the possibility of mental causes/explanations having genuinecausal/explanatory power. I argue that thecausal and the explanatory versions of the exlusion argument should be distinguished. There are really two arguments, one of them perhaps successful, the other one not.

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   4 citations  

In this brief note I claim that, contrary to what Esfeld argues in his paper in this same volume, Kim's position with respect to the problem ofcausalexclusion does indeed commit him to thecausal heterogeneity of realized properties.

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Causal overdetermination, the existence of more than one sufficient cause for an effect, is standardly regarded as unacceptable among philosophers of mental causation. Philosophers of mind, both proponents ofcausalexclusion arguments and defenders of non-reductive physicalism, seem generally displeased with the idea of mental causes merely overdetermining their already physically determined effects. However, as I point out below, overdetermination is widespread in the broadly physical domain. Many of these cases are due to what I call the (...) preservation ofcausal sufficiency. We need therefore to be precise about what unacceptable overdetermination amounts to in order to evaluate the prospects for a non-reductive account of mental causation. I argue that in order to have a good understanding of unacceptable overdetermination we should appeal to the notion of a minimal sufficient cause. In brief, a sufficient cause is minimal if it is sufficient to bring about the effect, but not more than sufficient. One way a cause could be more than sufficient for an effect is if its existence necessitates the existence of another (simultaneous) cause that is also sufficient for the same effect. In the second half of the paper I use this revised understanding of unacceptablecausal overdetermination to show that the validity of thecausalexclusion argument depends on strong readings of the principle of thecausal self-sufficiency of physics. These strong readings can reasonably be questioned by a believer in non-reductive accounts of mental causation. This puts the burden of argument back on thecausal exclusionist. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

A much discussed argument in the philosophy of mind against non-reductive physicalism leads to the conclusion that all genuine causes involved in mental phenomena must be reductive physical causes. The latter ostensibly exclude any other causes from having genuine effects in human thought and behaviour. Jaegwon Kim has been the chief exponent of this line of argument, calling it variously thecausalexclusion argument or the supervenience argument against non-reductive physicalism. I will analyse this argument and show that (...) some of its key assumptions are unwarranted. Two assumptions on which I will particularly focus are thecausal closure of the physical and the prohibition againstcausal overdetermination when multiple sufficient causes are involved in some effect. The upshot will be that rather than lower-level physical causes always excluding or pre-empting possible mental causes, context plays a key role in determining what kinds of causation are at work in human behaviour and how those causes cooperate. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   6 citations  

One of the main line of responses to the infamouscausalexclusion problem has been based on the counterfactual account of causation. However, arguments have begun to surface to the effect that the counterfactual theory is in fact ill-equipped to solve theexclusion problem due to its commitment to downward causation. This argumentation is here critically analysed. An analysis of counterfactual dependence is presented and it is shown that if the semantics of counterfactuals is taken into account (...) carefully enough, the counterfactual notion of causation does not need to be committed to downward causation. However, it is a further question whether this is eventually enough to solve theexclusion problem for the analysis shows how the problem itself can take various different forms. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   11 citations  

In his article “The Blurred Line between Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design” and his response “The Problem of Natural Divine Causation and the Benefits of Partial Causation”, Mikael Leidenhag uses Jaegwon Kim’s work oncausalexclusion to critique what he calls “Natural Divine Causation” (NDC). Although I agree with Leidenhag that questions about divine action can fruitfully be posed in terms of Kim’s so-calledCausalExclusion Argument, I take issue with the way he attempts to carry (...) out this task and the reasons he offers against the overdetermination response to theCausalExclusion Argument. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

A number of writers, myself included, have recently argued that an “interventionist” treatment of causation of the sort defended in Woodward, 2003 can be used to cast light on so-called “causalexclusion” arguments. This interventionist treatment ofcausalexclusion has in turn been criticized by other philosophers. This paper responds to these criticisms. It describes an interventionist framework for thinking aboutcausal relationships when supervenience relations are present. I contend that this framework helps us to (...) see that standard arguments forcausalexclusion involve mistaken assumptions about what it is appropriate to control for or hold fixed in assessingcausal claims. The framework also provides a natural way of capturing the idea that properties that supervene on but that are not identical with realizing properties can be causally efficacious. (shrink)

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   142 citations  

Export citation   Bookmark   6 citations  

Compatibilists aim to solve thecausalexclusion problem by arguing that a physical cause and a mental cause are compatible with each other without involving the problematic overdetermination. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, I target at Karen Bennett’s (2003, 2008) influential compatibilist strategy—one that rests on the assumption that a mental cause is sufficient for bringing about a physical effect, just as a physical cause is. I argue that, on a plausible physicalist picture, this assumption (...) cannot be established. Second, I propose a weaker and more plausible interpretation of the mental efficacy, which takes a mental cause to be necessary (but not sufficient) for a physical effect in a counterfactual sense. The resulting picture of mental causation avoids the difficulties engendered from Bennett’s assumption and delivers fresh resources to solve theexclusion problem. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

Jaegwon Kim argues that if mental properties are irreducible with respect to physical properties, then mental properties are epiphenomenal. I believe that this conditional is false and argue that mental properties, along with their physical counterparts, may causally overdetermine their effects. Kim contends, however, that embracingcausal overdetermination in the mental case should be resisted for at least three reasons: it is implausible, it makes mental properties causally dispensable, and it violates theCausal Closure Principle. I believe, however, (...) that each of these reasons can be defeated. Moreover, further reflection on , according to Kim’s implicit logic, may lend support to the claim that physical properties, and not mental properties, are in danger of losing theircausal relevance. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Christian List and Peter Menzies 2009 have looked to interventionist theories of causation for an answer to Jaegwon Kim'scausalexclusion problem. Important to their response is the idea of realization-insensitivity. However, this idea becomes mired in issues concerning multiple realization, leaving it unable to fulfil its promise to blockexclusion. After explaining why realization-insensitivity fails as a solution to Kim's problem, I look to interventionism to describe a different kind of solution.

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   22 citations  

Mind and theCausalExclusion Problem Thecausalexclusion problem is an objection to nonreductive physicalist models of mental causation. Mental causation occurs when behavioural effects have mental causes: Jennie eats a peach because she wants one; Marvin goes to Harvard because he chose to, etc. Nonreductive physicalists typically supplement adherence to mental causation with … Continue reading Mind and theCausalExclusion Problem →.

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

Causation is extrinsic. What an event causes depends not just on its own nature and the laws, but on the environment in which it occurs. Had an event occurred under different conditions, it may have had different effects. Yet we often want to say that causation, in at least some respect, is not extrinsic. Events exert an influence on the world themselves, independently of what other events do or do not occur in their surroundings. This paper develops an account of (...) such influence and argues that it provides a solution to thecausalexclusion problem. By locating that solution largely within the metaphysics of causation, we can solve theexclusion problem without taking on a commitment to a theory of mind. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

Jaegwon Kim’scausalexclusion argument has rarely been evaluated from an empirical perspective. This is puzzling because its conclusion seems to be making a testable claim about the world: supervenient properties are causally inefficacious. An empirical perspective, however, reveals Kim’s argument to rest on a mistaken conception about how to test whether a property is causally efficacious. Moreover, the empirical perspective makes visible a metaphysical bias that Kim brings to his argument that involves a principle of non-inclusion.

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   43 citations  

In this paper, we examine thecausal framework within which integrated information theory of consciousness makes it claims. We argue that, in its current formulation, IIT is threatened by thecausalexclusion problem. Some proponents of IIT have attempted to thwart thecausalexclusion problem by arguing that IIT has the resources to demonstrate genuinecausal emergence at macro scales. In contrast, we argue that their proposed solution to the problem is damagingly circular as (...) a result of inter-defining information and causation. As a solution, we propose that IIT should adopt the specific interventionistcausal framework that we offer and show how IIT can harness this interventionist framework to avoid thecausalexclusion problem. We demonstrate how our argument remains fully compatible with the methodology, empirical data, and conceptual aims of the theory. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   5 citations  

This paper is about thecausalexclusion argument against non-reductive physicalism. Many philosophers think that this argument poses a serious problem for non-reductive theories of the mind — some think that it is decisive against them. In the first part I will outline non-reductive physicalism and theexclusion argument. Then I will distinguish between three versions of the argument that address three different versions of non-reductive physicalism. According to the first, the relation between mental and physical events (...) is token-identity. According to the second, mental events are distinct from physical events, but the latter metaphysically include and determine the former. And on the third version, mental and physical events are entirely distinct. I will argue that thecausalexclusion argument is not decisive against non-reductive physicalism in any of the three versions. According to non-reductive physicalism, mental events are dependent on physical events.Causalexclusion and overdetermination, however, requires distinct and independent causes. I will argue that the burden of proof lies with the opponents of non-reductive physicalism, who have to explain how metaphysically dependent events can possibly overdetermine an effect or exclude each other from being causally efficacious. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

The principle ofcausalexclusion is based on two distinctcausal notions:causal sufficiency and causation simpliciter. The principle suggests that the former has the power to exclude the latter. But that is problematic since it would amount to claiming that sufficient causes alone can take the roles of causes simpliciter. Moreover, the principle also assumes that events can sometimes have both sufficient causes and causes simpliciter. This assumption is in conflict with the first part of (...) the principle that claims that sufficient causes must exclude causes simpliciter. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   9 citations  

While concerns of the mental being causally excluded by the physical have persistently plagued non-reductive physicalism, such concerns are standardly taken to pose no problem for reductive type physicalism. Type physicalists have the obvious advantage of being able to countenance the reduction of mental properties to their physical base properties by way of type identity, thereby avoiding anycausal competition between instances of mental properties and their physical bases. Here, I challenge this widely accepted advantage of type physicalism over (...) non-reductive physicalism in avoiding thecausalexclusion of the mental. In particular, I focus on Jaegwon Kim’s influential version of thecausalexclusion argument, namely, his supervenience argument. I argue that type physicalism’s advantage is undermined by the following two things: (1) the generalizability of the supervenience argument, and (2) type physicalism’s incompatibility with mental properties at the fundamental level. This involves evaluating the generalization objection to the supervenience argument, probing the metaphysics of physicalism, and showing how (1) and (2) combine in a way that appears underappreciated given the general confidence in type physicalism’s advantage. (shrink)

Direct download(5 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

Two strains of interventionist responses to thecausalexclusion argument are reviewed and critically assessed. On the one hand, one can argue that manipulating supervenient mental states is an effective strategy for manipulating the subvenient physical states, and hence should count as genuine causes to the subvenient physical states. But unless the supervenient and subvenient states manifest some difference in their manipulability conditions, there is no reason to treat them as distinct, which in turn goes against the basic (...) assumption of nonreductive physicalism. On the other hand, one can preserve the distinction between the two by introducing asymmetric manipulability conditions that the supervenience thesis entails. But this response can be used to argue that mental causes never have physical effects. However, this argumentation can also be used to show that mental causes can have mental effects. (shrink)

Direct download(7 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   7 citations  

The paper aims to demonstrate the possibility of consistently accepting the existence of effective mental causality in the fundamentally physical world. We suppose that the concept of causality in J. Kim’sexclusion argument against mental causation, which implies а generative conception ofcausal relations, can be revised taking into account the specificity of the multilevel organization of living objects. Rejection of the mechanistic model of causality as a linear process, allows you to maintain commitment to the principle of (...)causal closure of the physical world and at the same time explain how top-down causality at the macro level is possible. For this, we use the model of a fractal tree ofcausal chains by J. Lowe, in which mental causality plays the role of an indirect cause of a fact. We carry out a meaningful distinction between the causality of facts and events by resorting to the multilevel model of J. Ellis, in which mental causality can be considered as a macro-level fact that has a selective effect on physical events of lower levels, taking into account a wide environmental context. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Intuitions play an important role in the debate on thecausal status of high‐level properties. For instance, Kim has claimed that his “exclusion argument” relies on “a perfectly intuitive … understanding of thecausal relation.” We report the results of three experiments examining whether laypeople really have the relevant intuitions. We find little support for Kim's view and the principles on which it relies. Instead, we find that laypeople are willing to count both a multiply realized property (...) and its realizers as causes, and regard the systematic overdetermination implied by this view as unproblematic. (shrink)

Direct download(6 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

No categories

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Given Kim’s principle of explanatoryexclusion (EE), it follows that in addition to the problem of mental causation, dualism faces a problem of mental explanation. However, the plausibility of EE rests upon the acceptance of a further principle concerning the individuation of explanation (EI). The two methods of defending EI—either by combining an internal account of the individuation of explanation with a semantical account of properties or by accepting an external account of the individuation of explanation—are both metaphysically implausible. (...) This is not, however, to reject the problem of mental explanation, for EE can be replaced with a far weaker principle, which does not require the acceptance of EI, but which generates a similar problem for dualism. (shrink)

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   7 citations  

This paper aims to show that a counterfactual approach to causation is not sufficient to provide a solution to thecausalexclusion problem in the form of systematic overdetermination. Taking into account the truthmakers ofcausal counterfactuals provides a strong argument in favour of the identity of causes in situations of translevel, causation.

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   5 citations  

Is there a problem ofcausalexclusion between micro- and macro-level physical properties? I argue (following Kim) that the sorts of properties that in fact are in competition are macro properties, viz., the property of a (macro-) system of 'having such-and-such macro properties' (call this a 'macro-structural property') and the property of the same system of 'being constituted by such-and-such a micro- structure' (call this a 'micro-structural property'). I show that there are cases where, for lack of reducibility, (...) there is a prima facie intra-levelcausal competition between the two kinds of properties. The problem can be resolved without giving up on thecausal efficacy of the macro-structural properties if we understand instances of macro-structural properties to be parts of micro-structural property instances. The parthood relation between both kinds of property instances can be mapped onto the way physical theory deals with the relation of their descriptions in the framework of perturbation theory. The application of this framework to the problem of emergent properties is discussed. (shrink)

Direct download(6 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   8 citations  

This article considers the recent defense of the supervenience approach to physicalism due to Jaegwon Kim. Kim argues that supervenience supports physicalcausal closure, and thatcausal closure supports physicalism – indeed, a kind of reductive physicalism – and thus that supervenience suffices for physicalism. After laying out Kim's argument, I ask whether its success would truly vindicate the role of supervenience in defining physicalist positions. I argue that it would not, and that insofar as Kim's defense of (...) supervenience physicalism succeeds, it does so by showing that supervenience physicalism is not a unique, nonredundant way to be a physicalist. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   3 citations  

There are a wide variety of theories of causation available in the philosophical literature. For the philosopher working in philosophy of mind, who makes use ofcausal concepts, what is to be made of this embarrassment of riches? By considering a variety of theoretical perspectives, she can discover which principles or assumptions about causation are robust, and which hold only within particular frameworks. In particular, she should be suspicious when the different premises in an argument can only be made (...) true by shifting between different theories of causation. I illustrate these themes using thecausalexclusion argument. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   19 citations  

A new way of avoiding thecausalexclusion argument in the context of manipulationism is proposed. In manipulationism,causal explanations are defined by counterfactual information accessed through manipulations. It is argued that the property of manipulability can be an emergent property of aggregate systems. Therefore, somecausal explanations are non-reducible andcausalexclusion is avoided. This emergentist notion ofcausal explanation addresses the question of how the special sciences can be based upon (...) class='Hi'>causal reasoning, even if fundamental physics is absent ofcausal relations. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Recent work by Jaegwon Kim and others suggest that functionalism leaves mental properties causally inefficacious in some sense. I examine three lines of argument for this conclusion. The first appeals to Occam's Razor; the second appeals to a ban on overdetermination; and the third charges that the kind of response I favor to these arguments forces me to give up "the homogeneity of mental and physical causation". I show how each argument fails. While I concede that a positive theory of (...) mental causation is desirable, there is no reason to think that functionalism renders such a theory unattainable. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   10 citations  

Given their physical realization, whatcausal work is left for functional properties to do? Humean solutions to theexclusion problem (e.g. overdetermination and difference-making) typically appeal to counterfactual and/or nomic relations between functional property-instances and behavioural effects, tacitly assuming that such relations suffice forcausal work. Clarification of the notion ofcausal work, I argue, shows not only that such solutions don't work, but also reveals a novel solution to theexclusion problem based on the (...) relations between dispositional properties at different levels of mechanism, which involves three central claims: (i) thecausal work of properties consists in grounding dispositions, (ii) functional properties are dispositions, and (iii) the dispositions of mechanisms are grounded in the dispositions of their components. Treating functional mental properties as dispositions of components in psychological mechanisms, I argue that such properties do thecausal work of grounding agent-level dispositions. These dispositions, while ultimately grounded in the physical realizers of mental properties, are indirectly so grounded, through a hierarchy of grounding relations that extends upwards, of necessity, through the mental domain. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   9 citations  

In The Self: Naturalism, Consciousness and the First-Person Stance, Jonardon Ganeri draws on the ancient Indian Cārvāka philosophy to delineate a “transformation” account of strong emergence, and argues that the account adequately addresses the well-known “causalexclusion problem” formulated by Kim. Ganeri moreover suggests that the transformation account is superior to the enactive account of emergence, developed by Francisco Varela and Evan Thompson for the latter merely “sidesteps” theexclusion problem. In this commentary, presented in an “author (...) meets critics” panel at the Pacific APA 2016, I suggest that, contrary to Ganeri’s claim, the enactive account does not merely sidestep thecausalexclusion problem—the response the enactive account can offer is actually highly similar to the response offered by the transformation account. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

objects are standardly taken to be causally inert, but this claim is rarely explicitly argued for. In the context of his platonism about musical works, in order for musical works to be audible, Julian Dodd argues that abstracta are causally efficacious in virtue of their concrete tokens participating in events. I attempt to provide a principled argument for thecausal inertness of abstracta by first rejecting Dodd’s arguments from events, and then extending and generalizing thecausalexclusion (...) argument to the abstract/concrete distinction. For reasons of parsimony, if concrete tokens or instantiations of abstract objects account for allcausal work, then there is no reason to attributecausal efficacy to abstracta, and thus reason to maintain theircausal inertness. I then consider how one of the main arguments againstcausalexclusion, namely Stephen Yablo’s notion of “proportionality”, could be modified to support thecausal efficacy of abstracta. I argue that from a few simple premises Yablo’s account in fact supports theircausal inertness. Having a principled reason for thecausal inertness of abstracta appears to entail that the musical platonist must admit that we never literally hear the musical work, but only its performances. I sketch a solution to this problem available to Dodd, so that the musical platonist can maintain that musical works are abstract objects and are causally inert while retaining their audibility. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   18 citations  

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation