Advertisement

Philosophia

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 435–453 | Cite as

Against Disanalogy-Style Responses to the Exclusion Problem

  • Kevin MorrisEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper focuses on an influential line of response to the exclusion problem for nonreductive physicalism, one defended with the most subtlety by Karen Bennett. According to this line of thought, a successful nonreductive response to the exclusion problem, a response that allows one to maintain each of the core components of nonreductive physicalism, may consist in showing that the manner in which the effects of mental causes also have distinct and sufficient physical causes is disanalogous to other types of cases in which an effect may have distinct sufficient causes. After laying out the formulation of the exclusion problem that Bennett endorses, along with her response to the problem, I offer an initial critique of this response insofar as it is couched in terms of her preferred formulation. I then present a general critique of disanalogy-style responses to the exclusion problem. I argue that extant implementations of this strategy are at best underdeveloped, and suggest that lack of clarity in the use of “overdetermination” may function to mask the shortcomings of this strategy. While others have questioned the details of such responses, the worries that I raise concern the very logic of the exclusion problem and how such responses fit into this logic.

Keywords

Exclusion problem Mental causation Nonreductive physicalism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank John Heil, Chris Richards, Kevin Sharpe, and Chiwook Won for helpful comments on related work, and Alex Gelb for assistance in preparing the manuscript. I would also like to thank audiences at 2014 meetings of the Alabama Philosophical Society, the Central States Philosophy Association, and the Southwestern Philosophical Society, as well as participants in John Heil’s 2013 NEH Metaphysics and Mind seminar, for helpful discussion and criticism. Work on this paper was supported, in part, by the National Endowment for the Humanities, although the views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the Endowment.

References

  1. Árnadóttir, S., & Crane, T. (2013). There is no exclusion problem. In S. C. Gibb, E. J. Lowe, & R. D. Ingthorsson (Eds.), Mental causation and ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Audi, P. (2012). Properties, powers, and the subset account of realization. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 84, 654–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, K. (2003). Why the exclusion problem seems intractable and how, just maybe, to tract it. Noûs, 37, 471–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, K. (2008). Exclusion again. In J. Hohwy & J. Kallestrup (Eds.), Being reduced. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Block, N. (1990). Can the mind change the world? In G. Boolos (Ed.), Meaning and method: essays in honor of Hilary Putnam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bontly, T. (2005). Proportionality, causation, and exclusion. Philosophia, 32, 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunzle, M. (1979). Causal overdetermination. The Journal of Philosophy, 76, 134–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carey, B. (2011). Overdetermination and the exclusion problem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 89, 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Descartes, R. (1641/1988). Meditations on First Philosophy. In Descartes: Select Philosophical Writings. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, and D. Murdoch (trans). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Descartes, R. (1643/1991). Correspondence with Elisabeth. In The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Volume 3: Correspondence. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch, and A. Kenney (trans). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Funkhouser, E. (2002). Three varieties of causal overdetermination. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 83, 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Funkhouser, E. (2006). The determinable-determinate relation. Noûs, 40, 548–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gillett, C., & Rives, B. (2005). The non-existence of determinables: or, a world of absolute determinates as default hypothesis. Noûs, 39, 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heil, J. (2003). From an ontological point of view. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kallestrup, J. (2006). The causal exclusion argument. Philosophical Studies, 131, 459–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keaton, D., & Polger, T. (2014). Exclusion, still not tracted. Philosophical Studies, 171, 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim, J. (1989a). The myth of nonreductive materialism. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 63, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim, J. (1989b). Mechanism, purpose, and explanatory exclusion. Philosophical Perspectives 3: Philosophy of Mind and Action Theory: 77–108.Google Scholar
  19. Kim, J. (1998). Mind in a physical world. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kim, J. (2005a). Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kim, J. (2005b). Philosophy of mind (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kim, J. (2010). Thoughts on Sydney Shoemaker’s physical realization. Philosophical Studies, 148, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mackie, J. (1974). The cement of the universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Marcus, E. (2005). Mental causation in a physical world. Philosophical Studies, 122, 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Merricks, T. (2003). Objects and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Morris, K. (2011). Subset realization, parthood, and causal overdetermination. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 92, 363–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morris, K. (2013). On two arguments for subset inheritance. Philosophical Studies, 163, 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morris, K. Unpublished manuscript. How to Formulate the Exclusion Problem.Google Scholar
  29. Papineau, D. (2006). The causal closure of the physical and naturalism. In B. McLaughlin (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Schaffer, J. (2003). Overdetermining causes. Philosophical Studies, 114, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shoemaker, S. (1981). Some varieties of functionalism. Philosophical Topics, 12, 83–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shoemaker. (2007). Physical realization. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sider, T. (2003). What’s so bad about overdetermination? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67, 719–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Won, C. (2014). Overdetermination, counterfactuals, and mental causation. The Philosophical Review, 123, 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yablo, S. (1992). Mental causation. The Philosophical Review, 101, 245–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations