DOCSLIB.ORG

A New Perspective on the Mind-Body Problem. Jesse L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A New Perspective on the Mind-Body Problem. Jesse L University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1984 A new perspective on the mind-body problem. Jesse L. Yoder University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Yoder, Jesse L., "A new perspective on the mind-body problem." (1984). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2055. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2055 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UMASS/AMHERST A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM A Dissertation Presented By Jesse L. Yoder Submitted to the Graduate School of University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 1984 Philosophy A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM A Dissertation Presented By JESSE L. YODER Approved as to style and content by: Gareth Matthews, Chairperson of Committee JinJU Vere Chappell , Member / » A Cynl^hU Freeland, Member Lf M ^ ' Michael Arbib, Member Michael Jubien, Department Department of Philosophy DEDICATION To Feroline Whitehead, Gareth Matthews, and Tech. Pubs, at Wang. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people deserve mention for their help at various points in my career. I will mention them in roughly chronological order. While I received much valuable help from many of my philosophy teachers at the University of Maryland, several deserve particular mention. Peter Goldstone was my first philosophy teacher and spent many hours explaining philosophy to me. I learned a lot about writing and criticism from Alan Pasch in his seminar on Necessity at the University of Maryland. I learned about Wittgenstein and other contemporary topics from Jack Odell. Many other members of the University of Maryland philosophy faculty and graduate students deserve credit for the many hours they spent teaching me philosophy and discussing philosophy with me during my undergraduate career. It was at Maryland during my sophomore year in college that I first became interested in the mind-body problem and decided to write my Ph.D. dissertation on this subject. At The Rockefeller University I had the opportunity to discuss philosophy freely with many teachers and students. I am especially Philosophy grateful to Joel Feinberg for his Social Philosophy and I believe I learned of Law tutorials at The Rockefeller University. from any more about careful writing and criticism from him than Frankfurt for the many other person. I would like to thank Harry iv hours we spent in tutorials on Philosophy of Mind and Descartes. I also received much insight into the mind-body problem from discussions with Donald Davidson. Norton Batkin, Alan Berger, Adina Schwartz, and Jonathan Lear as fellow students and as friends provided much encouragement, support, and helpful criticism. I am grateful to the members of my dissertation committee with whom I also took courses at the University of Massachusetts. These members include Gareth Matthews, Vere Chappell, Cynthia Freeland, and Michael Arbib. I could not have completed my dissertation in so timely a fashion without Gary Matthews' quick and helpful responses to every chapter I submitted. I have made every effort to incorporate comments made by the members of my dissertation committee in the final version. I would also like to thank my friends in the Technical Publications department at Wang Laboratories for their encouragement and support during the last year while I was writing my dissertation. Jack Cahalan provided sage philosophical comments. I would particularly like to mention Joe Quigley and Mike Albert, my racquetball partners, and Nancy Kraus. I believe that my experience as a technical writer at Wang Laboratories has significantly improved my philosophical writing. Companies and to I am grateful to Commercial Union Insurance a Wang Laboratories for providing me with full-time employment as technical writer during the three years in which I wrote my V dissertation. My work with computers has given me a better understanding of philosophical arguments relating to artificial intelligence and computer models of the mind. Other friends I would like to mention are Steve Shannon, Barbara Winterson, Carl Sosebee, David Morrissey, David Hersh, Tim Bunnell, Larry Hohm, and Alan McMichael. I would especially like to thank Feroline Whitehead for her support, encouragement, and assistance during the entire time I wrote my dissertation. Finally, I would like to mention my cat Pascal, who always remained a friend and has served as an example of someone with a radically different point of view. VI PREFACE I have reproduced all emphasis in the form of italics or underlining in quotations in the form of underlining. Unless otherwise indicated, all such underlining throughout represents the emphasis of the original author. vii ABSTRACT A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM May 27, 1984 Jesse L. Yoder, B.A., University of Maryland M.A. , University of Massachusetts, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts Directed by: Professor Gareth Matthews The principal critical objective of this dissertation is to examine three contemporary theories about the mind-body problem: dualism, anomalous monism, and functionalism. The dualism examined is closely linked to Cartesian dualism, while functionalism is a form of materialism. Anomalous monism is a kind of dual aspect view. All these theories have a long tradition with different formulations and exponents. I examine three contemporary exponents of these views: Saul Kripke, a dualist, Donald Davidson, an anomalous monist, and Daniel Dennett, a functionalist. I argue that each of these theories is incorrect or has serious difficulties. The chief difficulty for dualism is in giving an account of mind-body interaction. The chief difficulty for anomalous monism is that internal tensions within the theory relating to Davidson's conception of physical events and scientific laws have the consequence that anomalous monism applies to the viii entities of physics and chemistry but not to events in the brain. The most serious difficulty for functionalism is in accounting for the qualities of subjective experience. I then discuss two criteria for identifying mental phenomena: incorrigibility and intentionality . I consider the problem of mind-body interaction as a problem for dualism. I argue that the mind-body problem is misconceived in that it is supposed that a univocal definition of 'physical' can be given. I state three different definitions of this term: one containing a scientific conception, one an objective conception, and one a personal conception. In my final chapter, I formulate a plural aspect view that accounts for mind-body interaction. On this view, mind is an aspect of body and body is an aspect of mind. This plural aspect view can be derived from a more general theory I call Viewpoint Pluralism. IX TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv PREFACE vii ABSTRACT viii INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter I. THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 3 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 The Mind-Body Problem as a Philosophical Problem 4 1.3 Dualism 8 1.3.1 Types of dualism 9 1.3.2 Early Greek conceptions 12 1.3.3 Plato 16 1.3.4 Descartes 23 1.3.5 Summary of dualist positions 27 1.3.6 Conclusion 29 1.4 Materialism 29 1.4.1 Aristotle 30 1.4.2 Hobbes 34 1.4.3 La Mettrie 37 1.4.4 Five types of materialism 41 1.4.5 Summary 1.5 Plural Attribute Monism 45 1.5.1 Spinoza 47 1.6 Idealism 1.7 Pluralism 1.7.1 Leibniz 1.8 Conclusion ^4 61 II. SAUL KRIPKE'S DEFENSE OF DUALISM 2.1 Introduction 61 2.2 Kripke's Theory of Proper Names 62 2.2.1 Names and some general terms are rigid designators 63 2.2.2 Identity statements between rigid designators are necessary 65 X 2.2.3 Origin is an essential property 66 2.2.4 Summary of Kripke's metaphysical views 67 2.3 Kripke's Arguments Against the Identity Thesis 68 2.3.1 Kripke's argument that a person is distinct from his body 68 2.3.2 Event identity 70 2.4 Feldman's Criticisms 71 2.4.1 Feldman's criticism of Kripke's argument that Descartes is not identical to his body 72 2.4.2 Feldman's criticism of Kripke on event identity. .79 2.5 Feldman's Three Conceptions of Events 83 2.6 Other Issues Relating to Dualism 87 2.6.1 The problem of interaction 88 2.7 One Consequence of Kripke's View on Origin 91 III. DONALD DAVIDSON'S ANOMALOUS MONISM 98 3.1 Introduction 98 3.2 Davidson's Views in "Mental Events" 101 3.3 Davidson's Argument for Anomalous Monism 103 3.4 Davidson's View of Mental and Physical Events 107 3.5 Davidson's Mental and Physical Domains 115 3.5.1 Davidson's claim that every scientific law must draw on a homonomic domain 126 3.6 Davidson's Argument for Anomalous Monism 130 3.7 Davidson's Demonstration of Identity 132 3.8 Conclusion 135 IV. DANIEL DENNETT'S DEFENSE OF FUNCTIONALISM 4.1 Introduction 138 4.2 Dennett's Flowchart of Pain 139 4.2.1 The personal/sub-personal distinction 145 4.2.2 Dennett's account of pain 149 4.2.3 Perceptual analysis 154 4.3 Are Our Intuitions About Pain Inconsistent? 159 4.4 Robot Emotions 164 4.5 Summary 166 V. INCORRIGIBILITY AND INTENTIONALITY : TWO CRITERIA FOR MENTAL PHENOMENA 169 5.1 Introduction 169 5.2 Incorrigibility 1^0 5.2.1 Mental events and mental features 171 5.2.2 Rorty's definition of incorrigibility 175 XI 5.2.3 Mental features 185 5.2.4 Conclusion about Rorty's defense of incorrigibility 188 5.2.5 Rorty's argument for materialism 189 5.3 Intentionality 5.3.1 Chisholm's criteria for intentional sentences.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Leibniz, Bayle and the Controversy on Sudden Change Markku Roinila (In: Giovanni Scarafile & Leah Gruenpeter Gold (Ed.), Paradoxes of Conflicts, Springer 2016)
    Leibniz, Bayle and the Controversy on Sudden Change Markku Roinila (In: Giovanni Scarafile & Leah Gruenpeter Gold (ed.), Paradoxes of Conflicts, Springer 2016) Leibniz’s metaphysical views were not known to most of his correspondents, let alone to the larger public, until 1695 when he published an article in Journal des savants, titled in English “A New System of the Nature and Communication of Substances, and of the Union of the Soul and Body” (henceforth New System).1 The article raised quite a stir. Perhaps the most interesting and cunning critique of Leibniz’s views was provided by a French refugee in Rotterdam, Pierre Bayle (1647−1706) who is most famous for his Dictionnaire Historique et Critique (1697). The fascinating controversy on Leibniz’s idea of pre-established harmony and a number of other topics lasted for five years and ended only when Bayle died. In this paper I will give an overview of the communication, discuss in detail a central topic concerning spontaneity or a sudden change in the soul, and compare the views presented in the communication to Leibniz’s reflections in his partly concurrent New Essays on Human Understanding (1704) (henceforth NE). I will also reflect on whether the controversy could have ended in agreement if it would have continued longer. The New System Let us begin with the article that started the controversy, the New System. The article starts with Leibniz’s objection to the Cartesian doctrine of extension as a basic way of explaining motion. Instead, one should adopt a doctrine of force which belongs to the sphere of metaphysics (GP IV 478).
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Philosophy, Inc
    Journal of Philosophy, Inc. The Harder Problem of Consciousness Author(s): Ned Block Source: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 99, No. 8 (Aug., 2002), pp. 391-425 Published by: Journal of Philosophy, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3655621 Accessed: 04-08-2015 15:41 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Journal of Philosophy, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Philosophy. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.122.149.154 on Tue, 04 Aug 2015 15:41:39 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY VOLUME XCIX, NO. 8, AUGUST 2002 THE HARDER PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS* H. Huxley' famously said: "How it is that anything so re- T. markable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the ap- pearance of Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp" (ibid., p. 19). We do not see how to explain a state of consciousness in terms of its neurological basis. This is the hard problemof consciousness.2 My aim here is to present another problem of consciousness.
    [Show full text]
  • 1Jackson (1998) Gives This Necessary Condition on Physicalism. 2Two of the Reasons That Kim Gives for Holding That Supervenience
    For Philosophy and Phenomenolgical Research The main conclusion of Jaegwon Kim’s admirable Mind and the Physical World is that the mind- body problem- Descartes problem of explaining how mental causation is possible- has not yet been solved. In particular, non reductive physicalism (NRP), a metaphysical account of the relationship between mental and physical entities that has become increasingly popular among philosophers of mind and that Kim himself once endorsed, is not a viable solution to the problem. I argue here that Kim’s arguments against non-reductive physicalism are unpersuasive and suggest that they involve assumptions about causation that are implausible in the light of contemporary physics. When these assumptions are rejected NRP lives. NRP is a family of views differing by how they understand “reduction” and “physicalism.” Following Kim I understand the non-reduction as holding that some events and properties are distinct from any physical events and properties. A necessary condition for physicalism is that mental properties, events, and laws supervene on physical ones. Kim allows various understandings of “supervenience” but I think that physicalism requires at least the claim that any minimal physical duplicate of the actual world is a duplicate simpliciter.1 Some complications aside this means that true mental propositions, e.g. Jaegwon is thinking about sailing, are metaphysically entailed by true physical propositions. Kim says that supervenience is too weak to capture the root idea of physicalism that mental property instantiations depend on physical property instantiations so he adds that the mental depends on the physical.2 One way (but not the only way) in which this dependance might be spelled out is that mental properties are higher order functional properties whose instantiations are realized by instantiations of physical properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Platonic Triangles and Fundamental Triads As the Basic Elements of the World
    Athens Journal of Humanities & Arts - Volume 5, Issue 1 – Pages 29-44 Platonic Triangles and Fundamental Triads as the Basic Elements of the World By Mark Burgin Plato introduced and explored many influential ideas. However, later researchers and thinkers did not properly interpreted and correctly understood all of his ideas. In this paper, we evoke one of the clusters of such ideas, namely, Platoʼs ontology based on Platonic bodies and elementary triangles. The goal is to find a relevant scientific interpretation of this idea. Based on the scientific picture of the world, we show that the whole Plato ontology has its relevant counterpart in contemporary science and mathematics. Introduction Plato (427-347 B.C.E.) is one of the greatest philosophers of all times and all nations. Some of his ideas had a formative impact on a diversity of philosophers and scientists, who worked with these ideas discovering new realms in the philosophical milieu. These ideas have come to our time as the greatest achievements of the human mind and creativity finding their reflection in contemporary science. The World of Ideas or Forms is an example of such a groundbreaking idea, the scientific counterpart of which is explicated in.1 This explication cracks the problem, the solution of which escaped the best thinkers, who tried to comprehend how the world in which people live is organized and functions. However, there were other ides of Plato, which have attracted much less attention from other thinkers and have been treated as auxiliary and negligible. Triangles as the basic elements, from which everything in the world is created, are an example of such a forgotten idea.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew Wong Washington University, St. Louis the Aim of This Paper Is to Support Donald Davidson's Anomalous Monism1 As An
    do E s An o m A l o u s mo n i s m hA v E proper construal of Davidson’s principle Ex p l A n A t o r y fo r ce ? of rationality will show the objection to be misguided. Andrew Wong Washington University, St. Louis “Mental Events” reconciles the paradox which arises from three principles Davidson held ex hypothesi: (1) Mental events interact causally with physical events (Principle of Causal Interaction), (2) Where there is causality, there must be a law (Principle of the Nomological The aim of this paper is to support Donald Character of Causality), and (3) There are no 1 strict deterministic laws on the basis of which Davidson’s Anomalous Monism as an account mental events can be predicted and explained of law-governed mental causation in a world (Principle of the Anomalism of the Mental).4 unfettered by psychophysical laws. To this end, I will attempt to answer one principal objection Tension is apparent in that some mental to the theory: the claim that Anomalous events must interact causally with physical events Monism lacks sufficient “explanatory force.”2 and thereby feature in laws, and that this is an Though not quite the standard objection, I explicit contradiction of the Principle of the believe it to be the most formidable, and hence Anomalism of the Mental. Accepting three the most crucial to address.3 The argument’s further principles, in addition to the three strength is that it need not dispute Davidson’s above, will resolve the tension: (4) Each mental assumptions.
    [Show full text]
  • The ('('Orthodox" View of Theories: Remarks in Defense As Well As Critique
    -----HERBERT FEIGL----- The ('('Orthodox" View of Theories: Remarks in Defense as well as Critique The purpose of the following remarks is to present in outline some of the more important features of scientific theories. I shall discuss the "standard" or "orthodox" view, mainly in order to set up a target for criticisms, some of which I shall briefly sketch by way of anticipation. The standard account of the structure of scientific theories was given quite explicitly by Norman R. Campbell [7], as well as independently in a little-known article by R. Carnap [12]. A large part of the voluminous literature in the philosophy of science of the logical empiricists and re­ lated thinkers contains, though with a great many variations, develop­ ments, modifications, and terminological diversities, essentially similar analyses of the logical structure and the empirical foundations of the theories of physics, biology, psychology, and some of the social sciences. Anticipating to some extent Campbell and Carnap, Moritz Schlick, in his epoch-making AIIgemeine Erkenntnisiehre [38], championed the doc­ trine of "implicit definition." In this he was influenced by David Hil­ bert's axiomatization of geometry, as well as by Henri Poincare's and Albert Einstein's conceptions of theoretical physics and the role of ge­ ometry in physics. These matters were then developed more fully and precisely in the work of H. Reichenbach, R. Carnap, C. G. Hempel, R. B. Braithwaite, E. Nagel, and many other logicians and methodolo­ gists of science. In order to understand the aim of this important approach in the philosophy of science it is essential to distinguish it from historical, so­ ciological, or psychological studies of scientific theories.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Mind
    From the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Philosophy of Mind Frank Jackson, Georges Rey Philosophical Concept ‘Philosophy of mind’, and ‘philosophy of psychology’ are two terms for the same general area of philosophical inquiry: the nature of mental phenomena and their connection with behaviour and, in more recent discussions, the brain. Much work in this area reflects a revolution in psychology that began mid-century. Before then, largely in reaction to traditional claims about the mind being non-physical (see Dualism; Descartes), many thought that a scientific psychology should avoid talk of ‘private’ mental states. Investigation of such states had seemed to be based on unreliable introspection (see Introspection, psychology of), not subject to independent checking (see Private language argument), and to invite dubious ideas of telepathy (see Parapsychology). Consequently, psychologists like B.F. Skinner and J.B. Watson, and philosophers like W.V. Quine and Gilbert Ryle argued that scientific psychology should confine itself to studying publicly observable relations between stimuli and responses (see Behaviourism, methodological and scientific; Behaviourism, analytic). However, in the late 1950s, several developments began to change all this: (i) The experiments behaviourists themselves ran on animals tended to refute behaviouristic hypotheses, suggesting that the behaviour of even rats had to be understood in terms of mental states (see Learning; Animal language and thought). (ii) The linguist Noam Chomsky drew attention to the surprising complexity of the natural languages that children effortlessly learn, and proposed ways of explaining this complexity in terms of largely unconscious mental phenomena. (iii) The revolutionary work of Alan Turing (see Turing machines) led to the development of the modern digital computer.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Major Issues and Developments in the Philosophy Ofscience Oflogical Empiricism
    -----HERBERT FEIGL----- Some Major Issues and Developments in the Philosophy ofScience ofLogical Empiricism AsouT twenty-five years ago a small group of philosophically minded scientists and scientifically trained philosophers in Vienna formulated their declaration of independence from traditional philosophy. The pamphlet Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis (1929) contained the first succinct statement of the outlook which soon after became known as "logical positivism." In the first flush of enthusiasm we Viennese felt we had attained a philosophy to end all philosophies. Schlick spoke of a "Wende der Philosophie" (a decisive turning point of philosophy). Neurath and Frank declared "school philosophy" as obsolete and even suggested that our outlook drop the word "philoso­ phy" altogether, and replace it by "Einheitswissenschaft" or by "scien· tific empiricism." The notable impact of Alfred Ayer's first book in England, and my own efforts ~oward a propagation of Logical Positiv­ ism in the United States during the early thirties, and then the immi· gration of Carnap, Frank, von Mises, Reichenbach, Hempel and Berg­ mann created a powerful movement, but it elicited also sharp opposition nncl criticism. Through the discussions within the movement and its own production and progressive work, as well as in response to the NO'l'F.: This essay is a revised and considerably expanded .version of a lecture given in plenary session at the International Congress for Philosophy of Science, Zurich, /\ngust 25, 1954. It was first- published in Proceedi11gs of the Secono International Congress of the International Union for tl1e Philosophy ot Science (Neuchatel, Switzerland, 19 55). In the cordial letter of invitation I received from Professor Ferdinand Gonseth, president of the Congress, he asked me to discuss "I'empirisme logi<\ue,-ce qu'il fut, et ce qu'il est clevenu." Much as I appreciated the honor of t 1is ambitious assignment, I realized of course that the limitations of time would permit me to deal onJy with some selected topics within this larger frame.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory of Intentionality *
    Ronald McIntyre and David Woodruff Smith, “Theory of Intentionality,” in J. N. Mohanty and William R. McKenna, eds., Husserl’s Phenomenology: A Textbook (Washington, D. C.: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology and University Press of America, 1989), pp. 147-79. Original page numbers are in <>. THEORY OF INTENTIONALITY * by Ronald McIntyre and David Woodruff Smith 1. INTENTIONALITY Intentionality is a central concept in philosophy of mind and in Husserl’s phenom­ enology. Indeed, Husserl calls intentionality the “fundamental property of consciousness” and the “principle theme of phenomenology”. Although ‘intentionality’ is a technical term in philosophy, it stands for something familiar to us all: a characteristic feature of our mental states and experiences, especially evident in what we commonly call being “conscious” or “aware”. As conscious beings, or persons, we are not merely affected by the things in our environment; we are also conscious of these things – of physical objects and events, of our own selves and other persons, of abstract objects such as numbers and propositions, and of anything else we bring before our minds. Many, perhaps most, of the events that make up our mental life – our perceptions, thoughts, beliefs, hopes, fears, and so on – have this characteristic feature of being “of” or “about” something and so giving us a sense of something in our world. When I see a tree, for example, my perception is a perception of a tree; when I think that 3 + 2 = 5, I am thinking of or about certain numbers and a relation among them; when I hope that nuclear war will never take place, my hope is about a possible future state of the world; and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Swinburne's Arguments for Substance Dualism
    Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. MA by Research in Theology and Religion David Horner September 2018 Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. Submitted by David Horner to the University of Exeter as a dissertation for the degree of MA by Research in Theology and Religion in September 2018 This dissertation is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the dissertation may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. 1 Acknowledgements. I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr Jonathan Hill and Dr Joel Krueger for their support and encouragement in the writing of this dissertation and for their patience in trying to keep me on the straight and narrow. I want to acknowledge the many conversations, on this and other topics, I have had with my friend and philosopher, Dr Chris Boyne, who sadly died in June of this year. I thank all my other chums at The Bull, Ditchling, for listening to my metaphysical ramblings. And finally, I thank my wife, Linda, for once more putting up with this kind of thing. 2 Abstract This dissertation is a contribution to debates in the philosophy of mind and of personal identity. It presents a critical account of arguments for substance dualism to be found in Richard Swinburne’s Mind, Brain, and Free Will (2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Minds and Machines Anomalous Monism, Contd
    Minds and Machines spring 2003 Anomalous monism, contd. 1 24.119 spring 03 “Mental events” • a defense of “anomalous monism” • like Dennett, Davidson is a materialist (hence, “monism”, as opposed to “dualism”) • like Dennett, Davidson gives a nonreductive account of the mental (hence, “anomalous” monism) Donald Davidson 2 24.119 spring 03 three principles • causal interaction “every mental event is the cause or effect of some physical event” • the nomological character of causality if c causes e, then there is a (strict) law of the form “A-type events are followed by B- type events”, where c is of type-A, and e is of type-B • the anomalism of the mental there are no strict laws on the basis of which mental events can be predicted and 3 explained 24.119 spring 03 anomalous monism • the token identity theory “Every mental event…is a physical event” (see the “demonstration of identity” on p. 124) and: • the anomalism of the mental there are no strict laws on the basis of which mental events can be predicted and explained 4 24.119 spring 03 lawlike statements • lawlike statements “general statements that support counterfactual and subjunctive claims, and [that] are supported by their instances” e.g., ‘all swans are white’; evidence for this is also evidence for the “counterfactual conditional” ‘if this had been a swan, it would have been white’ (cf. ‘if this dime had been in my pocket, it would have been a quarter’) • ceteris paribus lawlike statements lawlike statements “qualified by generous escape clauses”—‘in normal conditions’, ‘other things being equal’, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Causal Efficacy of Consciousness
    entropy Article The Causal Efficacy of Consciousness Matthew Owen 1,2 1 Yakima Valley College, Yakima, WA 98902, USA; [email protected] 2 Center for Consciousness Science, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Received: 10 June 2020; Accepted: 17 July 2020; Published: 28 July 2020 Abstract: Mental causation is vitally important to the integrated information theory (IIT), which says consciousness exists since it is causally efficacious. While it might not be directly apparent, metaphysical commitments have consequential entailments concerning the causal efficacy of consciousness. Commitments regarding the ontology of consciousness and the nature of causation determine which problem(s) a view of consciousness faces with respect to mental causation. Analysis of mental causation in contemporary philosophy of mind has brought several problems to the fore: the alleged lack of psychophysical laws, the causal exclusion problem, and the causal pairing problem. This article surveys the threat each problem poses to IIT based on the different metaphysical commitments IIT theorists might make. Distinctions are made between what I call reductive IIT, non-reductive IIT, and non-physicalist IIT, each of which make differing metaphysical commitments regarding the ontology of consciousness and nature of causation. Subsequently, each problem pertaining to mental causation is presented and its threat, or lack thereof, to each version of IIT is considered. While the lack of psychophysical laws appears unthreatening for all versions, reductive IIT and non-reductive IIT are seriously threatened by the exclusion problem, and it is difficult to see how they could overcome it while maintaining a commitment to the causal closure principle.
    [Show full text]