Advertisement

Causal closure of the physical, mental causation, and physics

  • Dejan R. DimitrijevićEmail author
Paper in Philosophy of the Natural Sciences
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

The argument from causal closure of the physical (CCP) is usually considered the most powerful argument in favor of the ontological doctrine of physicalism. Many authors, most notably Papineau, assume that CCP implies that physicalism is supported by physics. I demonstrate, however, that physical science has no bias in the ontological debate between proponents of physicalism and dualism. I show that the arguments offered for CCP are effective only against the accounts of mental causation based on the action of the mental forces of a Newtonian nature, i.e. those which manifest themselves by causing accelerations. However, it is conceivable and possible that mental causation is manifested through the redistribution of energy, momentum and other conserved quantities in the system, brought about by altering the state probability distribution within the living system and leading to anomalous correlations of neural processes. After arguing that a probabilistic, interactionist model of mental causation is conceivable, which renders the argument from causal closure of the physical ineffective, I point to some basic features that such a model must have in order to be intelligible. At the same time, I indicate the way that conclusive testing of CCP can be done within the theoretical framework of physics.

Keywords

Causal closure of the physical Mental causation Second law of thermodynamics Physics Probability distribution 

Notes

References

  1. Averil, E., & Keating, B. F. (1981). Does interactionism violate a law of classical physics? Mind, 90, 102–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, F., & Eccles, J. (1992). Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role od consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA, 89, 11357–11361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, C. H. (1987). Demons, engines and the second law. Scientific American, 257, 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, C. H. (2011). Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s demon. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34(3), 501–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop, R. (2010). The Via Negativa: Not the way to physicalism. Mind and Matter, 8(2), 203–214.Google Scholar
  6. Bishop, R. (2012). Excluding the causal exclusion argument against non-reductive physicalism. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 19(5–6), 57–74.Google Scholar
  7. Brillouin, L. (1953). The Negentropy principle of information. Journal of Applied Physics, 24, 1152–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broad, C. D. (1925). The mind and its place in nature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Crane, T. (1995). The mental causation debate. Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 69, 211–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dowell, J. (2006). The physical: Empirical, not metaphysical. Philosophical Studies, 131, 25–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Earman, J., & Norton, J. D. (1998). EXORCIST XIV: The wrath of Maxwell’s demon. Part I. From Maxwell to Szilard, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 29(4), 435–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Earman, J., & Norton, J. D. (1999). EXORCIST XIV: The wrath of Maxwell’s demon. Part II. From Szilard to Landauer and Beyond, History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 30(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
  14. Eccles, J. (1980). The human psyche. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eccles, J. (1987). Brain and mind: two or one? In C. Blakemore & S. Greenfield (Eds.), Mindwaves (pp. 293–308). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Garcia, R. K. (2014). Closing in on causal closure. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 21(1–2), 96–109.Google Scholar
  17. Gibb, S. (2010). Closure principles and the Laws of conservation of energy and momentum. Dialectica, 64, 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibb, S. (2015). The causal closure principle. The Philosophical Quarterly, 65(261), 626–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gillett, C., & Witmer, D. G. (2001). A ‘physical’ need: Physicalism and the via negativa. Analysis, 61(4), 302–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hempel, C. (1980). Comments on Goodman’s ways of Worldmaking. Synthese, 45, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson, F. (1996). Mental Causation. Mind, 105(419), 377–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism or something near enough. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Landauer, R. (1961). Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 5, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lowe, E. J. (2000). Causal closure principles and Emergentism. Philosophy, 75, 571–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lowe, E. J. (2006). Non-Cartesian substance dualism and the problem of mental causation. Erkenntnis, 65(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lowe, E. J. (2008). Personal agency: The metaphysics of mind and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loewer, B. (2001). From physics to physicalism. In C. Gillett & B. Loewer (Eds.), Physicalism and its discontents (pp. 37–56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maxwell, J. C. (1871). Theory of heat. London: Longmans, Green, & Co..Google Scholar
  29. Melnik, A. (2003). A physicalist manifesto: Thoroughly modern materialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Montero, B. (2003). Varieties of causal closure. In S. Walter & S. Heckman (Eds.), Physicalism and mental causation: The metaphysics of mind and action (pp. 173–187). Imprint Academic: Charlottesville.Google Scholar
  31. Montero, B., & Papineau, D. (2005). A defence of the via negativa argument for physicalism. Analysis, 65(3), 233–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morowitz, H. J. (1987). The mind body problem and the second law of thermodynamics. Biology and Philosophy, 2(3), 271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Orilia, F. & Swoyer, C. (2017). Properties. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/properties/. Accessed 30 May 2019.
  34. Papineau, D. (2001). The rise of physicalism. In C. Gillett & B. Loewer (Eds.), Physicalism and its discontents (pp. 3–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Papineau, D. (2013). Causation is macroscopic but not irreducible. In S. Gibb, E. J. Lowe, & R. D. Ingthorsson (Eds.), Mental causation and ontology (pp. 126–152). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the mind. Oxford: New York.Google Scholar
  37. Popper, K., & Eccles, J. (1977). The self and its brain. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robinson, H. (2017). Dualism, The Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.standard.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/dualism/. Accessed 11 Feb 2019.
  39. Saad, B. (2018). A causal argument for dualism. Philosophical Studies, 175, 2475–2506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stapp, H. P. (1993). Mind, matter and quantum mechanics. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwartz, J. M. et al. (2004). Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind-brain interaction, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, published online, 1–19.Google Scholar
  42. Smoluchowski, M. (1912). Experimentell nashweisbare, der üblichen Thermodynamik widersprechende Molekularphänomene. Physikalische Zeitschrift, 13, 1069–1080.Google Scholar
  43. Spurrett, D., & Papineau, D. (1999). A note on the completeness of ‘physics’. Analysis, 59, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stoljar, D. (2017). Physicalism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/physicalism/. Accessed 30 May 2019.
  45. Tiehen, J. (2015). Explaining causal closure. Philosophical Studies, 172, 2405–2425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Szilard, L. (1929). On the Decrease of Entropy in a Thermodynamic System by the Intervention of Intelligent Beings, in The Collected Works of Leo Szilard: Scientific Papers (Boston, MA: MIT Press), 120–129.Google Scholar
  47. Teller, P. (2004). The law-idealization. Philosophy of Science, 71, 730–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson, J. (2006). On characterizing the physical. Philosophical Studies, 131, 61–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson, J. (2007). Newtonian forces. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 58, 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Niš, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Department of PhysicsNišSerbia

Personalised recommendations