Physicalism,Emergence and Downward Causation

The development of a defensible and fecund notion of emergence has been dogged by a number of threshold issues neatly highlighted in a recent paper by Jaegwon Kim. We argue that physicalist assumptions confuse and vitiate the whole project. In particular, his contention that emergence entails supervenience is contradicted by his own argument that the ‘microstructure’ of an object belongs to the whole object, not to its constituents. And his argument against the possibility of downward causation is question-begging and makes false assumptions about causal sufficiency. We argue, on the contrary, for a rejection of the deeply entrenched assumption, shared by physicalists and Cartesians alike, that what basically exists are things (entities, substances). Our best physics tells us that there are no basic particulars, only fields in process. We need an ontology which gives priority to organization, which is inherently relational. Reflection upon the fact that all biological creatures are far-from-equilibrium systems, whose very persistence depend upon their interactions with their environment, reveals incoherence in the notion of an ‘emergence base’.     

Definition Inclosed: A Reply to Zhong

In ‘Definability and the Structure of Logical Paradoxes’ (Australasian Journal of Philosophy, this issue) Haixia Zhong takes issue with an account of the paradoxes of self-reference to be found in Beyond the Limits of Thought [Priest 1995. The point of this note is to explain why the critique does not succeed. The criterion for distinguishing between the set-theoretic and the semantic paradoxes offered does not get the division right; the semantic paradoxes are not given a uniform solution; no reason is provided as to why the naïve denotation relation is ‘indefinite’ (other than that its definiteness leads to contradiction); and the account of the denotation relation given clearly misses the mark, even by consistent standards.     

Mental Causation,Conscious and Unconscious: A Reply to Anthonie Meijers

While the recent publication of the Hannah Arendt-Martin Heidegger correspondence confirms that there existed a close personal tie between these two thinkers, the relation between their philosophies is far more problematic. This article argues that Arendt's originality presents itself in its full light in her two major theoretical works of the 1950s, Between Past and Future and The Human Condition , when these works are considered to present a thinly veiled, implicit critique of Heidegger's philosophy. Arendt's critique becomes especially visible in the 'existential' role that she attributed to natality in its relation to political action and to remembrance, placing in question the central orientation of Heidegger's existential ontology in terms of being-toward-death.     

Marriage, Autonomy, and the State: Reply to Christopher Bennett

Christopher Bennett has argued that state support of conjugal relationships can be founded on the unique contribution such relationships make to the autonomy of their participants by providing them with various forms of recognition and support unavailable elsewhere. I argue that, in part because a long history of interaction between two people who need each other’s validation tends to produce less meaningful responses over time, long-term conjugal relationships are unlikely to provide autonomy-enhancing support to their participants. To the extent that intimate relationships can provide a unique form of reciprocal support, Bennett fails to show that couples have an advantage over multiple-partner arrangements in doing so.     

Downward Causation in Self-Organizing Systems: Problem of Self-Causation

Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research - Enabling constraints are bottom up causes which create the possibility of the existence of a system. Disabling constraints reduce the degrees...     

Reply to Noordhof on Mental Causation

In my paper 'The Properties of Mental Causation', PQ , 47 (1997), pp. 178–94. I proposed (as others have) a trope-based solution to a problem of mental causation. Noordhof in PQ , 48 (1998), pp. 221–6, has objected that the solution raises new problems just as intractable as the original. Some of his criticisms are based on misunderstandings of the role of tropes in the theory and of my general aim. He does, however, usefully develop an objection I addressed briefly in my paper: even if the trope solution explains how mental properties are causally relevant, does it explain how they are relevant qua mental? That is, does the problem appear again at the level of tropes? This kind of objection can be raised against any proposed solution to the problem, but it depends on the questionable assumption that properties themselves have properties. Noordhof also insists that the trope solution must provide a criterion of trope identity, but this is, I argue, a red herring in this context.     

Autonomy and Conjugal Love: A Reply to Golash

In my response to Golash I distinguish between two steps in my original argument. The first relates to the special value of conjugal (two-person) love relationships. I defend this step against criticisms, arguing that the two-person relationship provides a form of recognition that is of special importance to us and cannot be found in other sorts of relationship. The two-person relationship is one that, at least as private individuals, we have special reason to pursue. The second step concerns the claim that the special value of such relationships tends to promote the autonomy of those who have them. It is this second step that is important for the argument that a liberal state – one, at any rate, that takes itself to be in the business of safeguarding the pre-conditions of autonomy – could have reason to favour marriage or some form of civic partnership over other forms of intimate adult tie. However, I admit that Golash puts forward plausible – if anecdotal – arguments against this second step. I therefore agree that I need to be more tentative about this step than I was in the original paper.     

Autonomy as Social Independence: Reply to Weimer

I defend my pure social account of global autonomy from Steven Weimer's recent criticisms. In particular, I argue that it does not implicitly rely upon the very kind of nonsocial conception of autonomy that it hopes to replace.     

Physicalism and Downward Causation in Psychology and the Special Sciences

Wilderness valued as mere resource for human‐interest satisfaction is challenged in favor of wilderness as a productive source, in which humans have roots, but which also yields wild neighbors and aliens with intrinsic value. Wild value is storied achievement in an evolutionary ecosystem, with instrumental and intrinsic, organismic and systemic values intermeshed. Survival value is reconsidered in this light. Changing cultural appreciations of values in wilderness can transform and relativize our judgments about appropriate conduct there. A final valued element in wildness is its idiographic historical particularity, and most surprising is the emergence of a novel morality when humans learn to let values go wild.     

Counterfactuals,Probabilities, and Information: Response to Critics

In earlier work we proposed an account of information grounded in counterfactual conditionals rather than probabilities, and argued that it might serve philosophical needs that more familiar probabilistic alternatives do not. Demir [2008] and Scarantino [2008] criticize the counterfactual approach by contending that its alleged advantages are illusory and that it fails to secure attractive desiderata. In this paper we defend the counterfactual account from these criticisms, and suggest that it remains a useful account of information.     

下向因果与感受性——兼评金在权的心-身理论

下向因果问题和感受性问题是当代物理主义所面临的两个挑战,它们迫使金在权不得不从物理主义的立场上有所让步.本文分析了金在权在这两个问题上失败的因为,并提出解决这两个问题的方案.笔者的立足点不是物理主义,而是二元论的功能实在论.功能实在论把功能实现的整体看作第一实在,其中的两个要素即功能意义和功能结构是具有因果力的,因而也是实在的.一方面,由于功能意义和功能结构是作为不可分割的整体参与下向因果作用的,因而不存在金在权所面临的因果解释的排他性问题;另一方面,由于作者并不崇尚物理主义,因而因果物理闭合原则对于笔者归于无效.下向因果问题就此得以解决.感受性是一种内在的功能意义,既是非物理的义是实在的.感受性问题就此得以解决.     

Autonomy and the Moral Symmetry Principle: Reply to Frowe and Tooley

Helen Frowe has recently objected to Michael Tooley’s famous Moral Symmetry Principle, which is meant to show that in themselves killing and letting die are morally equivalent. I argue that her objection is not compelling but a more compelling objection is available. Specifically, Tooley’s rebuttal of a proposed counter-example to his Moral Symmetry Principle has two problematic implications. First, it undercuts the very principle itself. If we reject the proposed counter-example, then any instance of the Moral Symmetry Principle will actually demonstrate the moral in-equivalence of killing and letting die. Second, it commits us to the view, which Tooley wishes to avoid, that we are just as obligated to refrain from doing wrong as we are to prevent others from doing the same. I conclude with a brief discussion of a more general concern regarding Tooley’s basic strategy. My focus here is quite narrow. My claims, if plausible, only show that the Moral Symmetry Principle is unsound and thus cannot serve as a basis for the view that killing and letting die are morally equivalent.