Physicalism is the idea that everything either is physical or is nothing over and above the physical. For this formulation of physicalism to have determinate content, it should be identified what the “physical” refers to; i.e. the body problem. Some other closely related theses, especially the ones employed in the causal arguments for different versions of physicalism, and more especially the causal closure thesis, are also subject to the body problem. In this paper, I do two things. First, I explore the structure of causal arguments for physicalism that represents a general argument. To do this, the premises and the conclusion of the general argument are given exact formulations. Second, drawing on those premises, especially the causal closure thesis, I propose a naturalistic formulation of the physical that satisfies the requirements any formulation of the physical is expected to fulfill. Following this proposal, we also have a recursive algorithm to recognize the set of all physical events.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
They include the current theory (or the currentist) formulation (van Fraassen 1996; Melnyk 1997, 2003; Vicente 2011; for objections to this formulation see Montero 1999; Crook and Gillett 2001; Dowell 2006a; Ney 2008), the final theory (or the futurist) formulation (see, e.g., Dowell 2006b; Papineau 2009; for objections to this formulation see van Fraassen 1996; Montero 1999; Crook and Gillett 2001; Chomsky 2006; Ney 2008), the microphysicalists’ formulation (see, e.g., Pettit 1993; Jackson 1998; Papineau 2009; for objections to this formulation see Stoljar 2010; Crane and Mellor 1990; Crane 1993), the object-based formulation (see, e.g., Meehl and Sellars 1956; Jackson 1998; Snowdon 1989; for objections to this formulation see Montero 1999; Stoljar 2015), the no fundamental mentality formulation (Wilson 2006; Montero 2003; for objections to this formulation see Dowell 2006b; Judisch 2008), and the space-time-based (or space-based) formulation of the physical (see Meehl and Sellars 1956; Markosian 2000; Charles 1992; for objections to this formulation see Crane and Mellor 1990; Crane 1994; Montero 1999; Earman 1976; Daly 1998).
The reason behind following a formal approach here is twofold. First, all the principles and theses discussed here are given exact formulations. It serves to perform more accurate analyses. For example, it helps to make it clear that the general causal argument needs an extra premise to be valid in addition to the three ones different versions of which are generally thought to serve as the premises of the causal arguments. Second, although the proposed formulation of the physical is conceptually straightforward, its exact formulation as well as its justification is a bit tricky, and it can be better vindicated formally.
The relation ‘C’ may be interpreted differently. See the section §5.1 below.
It is important to note that we should also determine what the causal relation C is. It is another issue that, due to space limitations, I cannot tackle it here.
Here, for the sake of simplicity, I do not explicitly exclude the genuine cases of causal overdetermination from (EP) as was done in, e.g., Kim’s (2005, p. 17) definition of the principle.
Some endorse (MC) at least concerning mental events (see, e.g., Papineau 1993; Kim 2011; Tiehen 2015b, 2018). In some works, the principle of mental causation is vaguely introduced as a thesis like this: “Mental occurrences have physical effects” (Papineau 1990, p. 67; see also Papineau 1998; Sturgeon 1998; Bishop 2006; Stoljar 2015). However, in most of the works, it is implicitly suggested that the principle is true of all mental events. One proposal to reformulate (MC) is to say that every actual event has some actual or merely possible effect. This modal formulation seems reasonable since every actual event should at least be able to be perceived in one way or other, and perception, in general, includes some instance of causation.
It should not be confused with what Bishop (2006) calls “the hidden premise in the causal argument for physicalism.”
To overcome the body problem as an obstacle to defend the causal completeness of physics, Papineau proposes “we simply define ‘physics’ as the science of whatever categories are needed to give full explanations for all physical effects” (Papineau 1993, pp. 29–30 (original italics)), and the class of “the physical” is the set of all those categories. Then, to avoid the obvious circularity of the definition, he proposes “we simply postulate some pre-theoretically given class of paradigmatic physical effects, such as stones falling, the matter in our arms moving, and so on” (Papineau 1993, p. 30). Therefore, he becomes able to formulate physicalism and to defend causal completeness at the same time (“physics,” though a different science from what we now call ‘physics,’ is complete by definition). Although his proposal for defining the physical has some in common with mine, I strongly oppose any endeavor to define a branch of science a priori without paying attention to its “extra-scientific” – most importantly, social – aspects of that branch of science, which is the case in Papineau’s proposal. In comparison, my proposal, as is shown, is not subject to the same objection.
This idea of the physical has some similarities with that of “levels-physicalism” suggested by Hüttemann and Papineau (2005; see especially fn. 4).
It should be noted that it is one part of (CFP), i.e. (CFP-S), that is directly a posteriori justified, and the justification of (CFP-N) is the argument from (EP), (MC), and (SHP) to the conclusion (CFP-N).
Thanks an anonymous reviewer of the Review of Philosophy and Psychology for notifying this potential objection to me.
Thanks to Daniel Stoljar for reminding me of this objection.
Bishop, Robert C. 2006. The hidden premiss in the causal argument for physicalism. Analysis 66 (1): 44–52.
Chalmers, David John. 1996. The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Charles, David. 1992. Supervenience, composition and physicalism. In Reduction, explanation, and realism, ed. David Charles and Kathleen Lennon, 265–296. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Naturalism and dualism in the study of language and mind. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 2 (2): 181–209.
Chomsky, Noam. 2006. Language and mind. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crane, Tim. 1993. Reply to Pettit. Analysis 53 (4): 224–227.
Crane, Tim. 1994. Physicalism (2): Against physicalism. In A companion to the philosophy of mind, ed. Samuel Guttenplan, 479–484. Oxford: Blackwell.
Crane, Tim, and D.H. Mellor. 1990. There is no question of physicalism. Mind 99 (394): 185–206.
Crook, Seth, and Carl Gillett. 2001. Why physics alone cannot define the ‘physical’: Materialism, metaphysics, and the formulation of physicalism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 31 (3): 333–359.
Daly, Chris. 1998. What are physical properties. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79 (3): 196–217.
Dasgupta, Shamik. 2014. The possibility of physicalism. The Journal of Philosophy 111 (9/10): 557–592.
Davidson, Donald. 1970. Mental events. In Experience and theory, ed. Lawrence Foster and J.W. Swanson, 79–101. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Dove, Guy. 2018. Redefining physicalism. Topoi 37 (3): 513–522.
Dowell, Janice L. 2006a. Formulating the thesis of physicalism: An introduction. Philosophical Studies 131 (1): 1–23.
Dowell, Janice L. 2006b. The physical: Empirical, not metaphysical. Philosophical Studies 131 (1): 25–60.
Earman, John. 1976. What is physicalism? The Journal of Philosophy 72 (17): 565–567.
Feigl, Herbert. 1958. The ‘mental’ and the ‘physical’. In Concepts, theories, and the mind-body problem, ed. Herbert Feigl, Michael Scriven, and Grover Maxwell, 370-497. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, vol. 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Fodor, Jerry A. 1974. Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese 28 (2): 97–115.
Gibb, Sophie. 2015. The causal closure principle. The Philosophical Quarterly 65 (261): 626–647.
Göcke, Benedikt Paul. 2009. What is physicalism? Ratio 22 (3): 291–307.
Hüttemann, Andreas, and David Papineau. 2005. Physicalism decomposed. Analysis 65 (285): 33–39.
Jackson, Frank. 1994. Armchair metaphysics. In Philosophy in mind: The place of philosophy in the study of mind, ed. Michaelis Michael and John O'Leary-Hawthorne, 23–42. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Jackson, Frank. 1998. From metaphysics to ethics: A defence of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Judisch, Neal. 2008. Why ‘non-mental’ won’t work: On Hempel’s dilemma and the characterization of the ‘physical’. Philosophical Studies 140 (3): 299–318.
Kim, Jaegwon. 1989. The myth of nonreductive materialism. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 63 (3): 31–47.
Kim, Jaegwon. 1993. Supervenience and mind: Selected philosophical essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, Jaegwon. 1998. Mind in a physical world: An essay on the mind-body problem and mental causation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kim, Jaegwon. 2005. Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kim, Jaegwon. 2011. From naturalism to physicalism: Supervenience redux. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 85 (2): 109–134.
Kornblith, Hilary. 1994. Naturalism: Both metaphysical and epistemological. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1): 39–52.
Lewis, David K. 1966. An argument for the identity theory. The Journal of Philosophy 63 (1): 17–25.
List, Christian, and Daniel Stoljar. 2017. Does the exclusion argument put any pressure on dualism? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 95 (1): 96–108.
Loewer, Barry. 2001. From physics to physicalism. In Physicalism and its discontents, ed. Carl Gillett and Barry Loewer, 37–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Markosian, Ned. 2000. What are physical objects? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (2): 375–395.
McLaughlin, Brian, and Karen Bennett. 2018. Supervenience. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/supervenience/. Accessed 23 Mar 2020.
Meehl, Paul E., and Wilfrid Sellars. 1956. The concept of emergence. In The foundations of science and the concepts of psychology and psychoanalysis, ed. Herbert Feigl, and Michael Scriven, 239-252. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, vol. 19. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Melnyk, Andrew. 1997. How to keep the ‘physical’ in physicalism. The Journal of Philosophy 94 (12): 622–637.
Melnyk, Andrew. 2003. A physicalist manifesto: Thoroughly modern materialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Melnyk, Andrew. 2006. Realization and the formulation of physicalism. Philosophical Studies 131 (1): 127–155.
Montero, Barbara Gail. 1999. The body problem. Nous 33 (2): 183–200.
Montero, Barbara Gail. 2001. Post-physicalism. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8 (2): 61–80.
Montero, Barbara Gail. 2003. Varieties of causal closure. In Physicalism and mental causation: The metaphysics of mind and action, ed. Sven Walter and Heinz-Dieter Heckmann, 173–187. Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Montero, Barbara Gail. 2009. What is the physical? In Oxford handbook in the philosophy of mind, ed. Brian P. McLaughlin, Ansgar Beckermann, and Sven Walter, 173–188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ney, Alyssa. 2008. Defining physicalism. Philosophy Compass 3 (5): 1033–1048.
Ney, Alyssa. 2016. Microphysical causation and the case for physicalism. Analytic Philosophy 57: 141–164.
Papineau, David. 1990. Why supervenience? Analysis 50 (2): 66–71.
Papineau, David. 1991. The reason why: Response to Crane. Analysis 51 (1): 37–40.
Papineau, David. 1993. Philosophical naturalism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Papineau, David. 1998. Mind the gap. Nous 32 (S12): 373–388.
Papineau, David. 2001. The rise of physicalism. In Physicalism and its discontents, ed. Carl Gillett and Barry Loewer, 3–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Papineau, David. 2009. The casual closure of the physical and naturalism. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mind, ed. Brian P. McLaughlin, Ansgar Beckermann, and Sven Walter, 53–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Papineau, David. 2013. Causation is macroscopic but not irreducible. In Mental causation and ontology, ed. Sophie C. Gibb, E. Jonathan Lowe, and R.D. Ingthorsson, 126–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pettit, Philip. 1993. A definition of physicalism. Analysis 53 (4): 213–223.
Poland, Jeffrey Stephen. 1994. Physicalism: The philosophical foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poland, Jeffrey Stephen. 2003. Chomsky’s challenge to physicalism. In Chomsky and his critics, ed. Louise M. Antony and Norbert Hornstein, 29–48. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1995. Naturalism; Or, living within one's means. Dialectica 49 (2–4): 251–263.
Schaffer, Jonathan. 2003. Is there a fundamental level? Nous 37 (3): 498–517.
Sellars, Roy Wood. 1927. Why naturalism and not materialism? The Philosophical Review 36 (3): 216–225.
Snowdon, Paul F. 1989. On formulating materialism and dualism. In Cause, mind, and reality, 137–158. Dordrecht: Springer.
Spurrett, David. 2017. Physicalism as an empirical hypothesis. Synthese 194 (9): 3347–3360.
Stoljar, Daniel. 2010. Physicalism. London: Routledge.
Stoljar, Daniel. 2015. Physicalism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/physicalism/. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.
Strawson, Galen. 2003. Real materialism. In Chomsky and his critics, ed. Louise M. Antony and Norbert Hornstein, 49–88. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sturgeon, Scott. 1998. Physicalism and overdetermination. Mind 107 (426): 411–432.
Tiehen, Justin. 2015a. Explaining causal closure. Philosophical Studies 172 (9): 2405–2425.
Tiehen, Justin. 2015b. Grounding causal closure. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97: 501–522.
Tiehen, Justin. 2018. Physicalism. Analysis 78 (3): 537–551.
van Fraassen, Bas C. 1996. Science, materialism, and false consciousness. In Warrant in contemporary epistemology: Essays in honor of Plantinga's theory of knowledge, ed. Jonathan L. Kvanvig, 149–182. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Vicente, Agustín. 2011. Current physics and ‘the physical’. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (2): 393–416.
Wilson, Jessica M. 2005. Supervenience-based formulations of physicalism. Nous 39 (3): 426–459.
Wilson, Jessica M. 2006. On characterizing the physical. Philosophical Studies 131 (1): 61–99.
The research project that led to this paper was funded by Iran National Science Foundation (INSF-98018024). I am deeply indebted to Laleh Ghadakpour for her extended comments on several various drafts of this paper. I should also thank Kim Sterelny, Hossein Sheykh-Rezaee, Daniel Stoljar, Justin Tiehen, Janice Dowell, and an anonymous reviewer of the Review of Philosophy and Psychology for their valuable comments on various drafts of this paper or its earlier versions.
The research project that led to this paper was funded by Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) under grant agreement no. INSF-98018024.
Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests
The author has no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Bikaraan-Behesht, H. Physicalism, Closure, and the Structure of Causal Arguments for Physicalism: A Naturalistic Formulation of the Physical. Rev.Phil.Psych. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00567-0
- Causal closure
- The physical
- Body problem
- Mental causation
- Exclusion principle