Erkenntnis

, Volume 81, Issue 5, pp 1031–1049

Causal Exclusion and Downward Counterfactuals

Original Article

Abstract

One of the main line of responses to the infamous causal exclusion 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 the exclusion 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 the exclusion problem for the analysis shows how the problem itself can take various different forms.

References

  1. Andersen, P. B., Emmeche, C., Finnemann, N. O., & Christiansen, P. V. (Eds.). (2000). Downward causation: Minds, bodies and matter. Århus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bechtel, W., & Mundale, J. (1999). Multiple realizability revisited: Linking cognitive and neural states. Philosophy of Science, 66, 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, D. T. (1974). Downward causation in hierarchically organised biological systems. In F. J. Ayala & T. Dobzhansky (Eds.), Studies in the philosophy of biology: Reduction and related problems. London/Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Gibbons, J. (2006). Mental causation without downward causation. Philosophical Review, 115, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Haug, M. C. (2011). Review of Emergence in Mind, ed. C. MacDonald & G. Macdonald. Analysis, 71, 783–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kim, J. (1989a). Mechanism, purpose and explanatory exclusion. In Tomberlin (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives: Philosophy of mind and action theory, (Vol. 3, pp. 77–108). Atascadero, California: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
  7. Kim, J. (1989b). The myth of nonreductive materialism. Proceeding and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 63, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim, J. (1998). Mind in a physical world: An essay on the mind-body problem and mental causation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lepore, E., & Loewer, B. (1987). Mind matters. Journal of Philosophy, 84, 630–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lepore, E., & Loewer, Barry. (1989). More on making mind matter. Philosophical Topics, 17, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. K. (1973a). Causation. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 556–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewis, D. K. (1973b). Counterfactuals. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lewis, D. K. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13, 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. List, C., & Menzies, P. (2009). Nonreductive physicalism and the limits of the exclusion principle. The Journal of Philosophy, 106, 475–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Loewer, B. (2007). Mental causation, or something near enough. In B. P. McLaughlin & J. Cohen (Eds.), Contemporary debates in philosophy of mind. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Marras, A. (1998). Kim’s principle of explanatory exclusion. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 76, 439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Menzies, P. (2004). Difference-making in context. In J. Collins, N. Hall, & L. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Menzies, P. (2008). The exclusion problem, the determination relation, and contrastive causation. In J. Hohwy & J. Kallestrup (Eds.), Being reduced. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Menzies, P. (2011). The role of counterfactual dependence in causal judgements. In C. Hoerl, T. McCormack, & S. R. Beck (Eds.), Understanding counterfactuals, understanding causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Menzies, P., & List, C. (2010). The causal autonomy of the special sciences. In G. Macdonald & C. Macdonald (Eds.), Emergence in mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Moore, D. (2013). Counterfactuals, autonomy and downward causation. Philosophia, 41, 831–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murphy, N., Ellis, G. F. R., & O’Connor, T. (Eds.). (2009). Downward causation and the neurobiology of free will. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Pernu, T. K. (2013a). Does the interventionist notion of causation deliver us from the fear of epiphenomenalism? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 27, 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pernu, T. K. (2013b). The principle of causal exclusion does not make sense. The Philosophical Forum, 44, 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pernu, T. K. (2014a). Causal exclusion and multiple realizations. Topoi, 33, 525–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pernu, T. K. (2014b). Interventions on causal exclusion. Philosophical Explorations, 17, 255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Polger, T. (2009). Evaluating the evidence for multiple realization. Synthese, 167, 457–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schlosser, M. E. (2009). Non-reductive physicalism, mental causation and the nature of actions. In A. Hieke & H. Leitgeb (Eds.), Reduction: Between the Mind and the Brain. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Shapiro, L. (2000). Multiple realizations. Journal of Philosophy, 97, 635–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shapiro, L. (2008). How to test for multiple realization. Philosophy of Science, 75, 514–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shapiro, L., & Sober, E. (2012). Against proportionality. Analysis, 72, 89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomasson, A. L. (1998). A nonreductivist solution to mental causation. Philosophical Studies, 89, 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Woodward, J. (2006). Sensitive and insensitive causation. Philosophical Review, 115, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhong, L. (2011). Can counterfactuals solve the exclusion problem? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 83, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhong, L. (2012). Counterfactuals, regularity and the autonomy approach. Analysis, 72, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhong, L. (2014). Sophisticated exclusion and sophisticated causation. Journal of Philosophy, 111, 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhong, L. (2015). Why the counterfactualist should still worry about downward causation. Erkenntnis, 80, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of BiosciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations