Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Mental causation'

Mental causation is the cause and effect relationship of consciousness and the physical world, in particular, the influence of human consciousness on his/her behavior. In everyday life and scientific practice, the interaction between consciousness and the physical world is taken for granted. The influence of mental states and processes on human behavior is recognized as an established fact in everyday psychology, in scientific psychology, and in the philosophy of psychology. At the same time, in the modern philosophy of mind and cognitive science, the problem of mental causation is the subject of extensive discussions.

Mental causation is the cause and effect relationship of consciousness and the physical world, in particular, the influence of human consciousness on his/her behavior. In everyday life and scientific practice, the interaction between consciousness and the physical world is taken for granted. The influence of mental states and processes on human behavior is recognized as an established fact in everyday psychology, in scientific psychology, and in the philosophy of psychology. At the same time, in the modern philosophy of mind and cognitive science, the problem of mental causation is the subject of extensive discussions.

This thesis argues that the fundamental issues within the mental causation debate are metaphysical ones. Consequently, it is only with metaphysical clarity, that any clarity can be gained in the mental causation debate. In order to provide a successful theory of mental causation one cannot divorce oneself from metaphysics. Neither can one hope to provide a theory of mental causation that is somehow neutral between the various metaphysical systems. Rather, to be plausible, a theory of mental causation must be based within an independently plausible metaphysical framework. I divide the metaphysical issues that are of importance to the mental causation debate into three broad groups. Firstly, what causation is a relation between. Secondly, what the existence and identity conditions for properties are. Thirdly, what the causal relation is. Part One of this thesis is concerned with the first of these issues. The interpretation of the argument from causal over determination, and the possible responses to it, depend upon what causation is a relation between. A belief to the contrary, has led to implausible theories of mental causation and the misrepresentation of those positions within the mental causation debate that are ontologically serious. Part Two is concerned with property analysis. It is suggested that a plausible analysis of properties reveals that the true contenders within the mental causation debate are psychophysical reductionism on the one hand, and interactive mentalism on the other. Part Three is concerned with the causal relation. It is argued that the mental causation debate is affected by what one understands causation to be. In particular, whether a causal closure principle that is strong enough to allow one to advance physicalism can plausibly be advanced, depends upon the theory of causation in which one is embedding psychophysical causation.

Philosophy
Ph.D.
The Exclusion Argument for physicalism maintains that since every physical effect has a sufficient physical cause, and cases of causal overdetermination (wherein a single effect has more than one sufficient cause) are rare, it follows that if minds cause physical effects as frequently as they seem to, then minds must themselves be physical in nature. I contend that the Exclusion Argument fails to justify the rejection of interactionist dualism (the view that the mind is non-physical but causes physical effects). In support of this contention, I argue that the multiple realizability of mental properties and the phenomenal and intentional features of mental events give us reason to believe that mental properties and their instances are non-physical. I also maintain (a) that depending on how overdetermination is defined, the thesis that causal overdetermination is rare is either dubious or else consistent with interactionist dualism and the claim that every physical effect has a sufficient physical cause, and (b) that the claim that every physical effect has a sufficient physical cause is not clearly supported by current science. The premises of the Exclusion Argument are therefore too weak to justify the view that minds must be physical in order to cause physical effects as frequently as they seem to.
Temple University--Theses

CONSELHO NACIONAL DE DESENVOLVIMENTO CIENTÍFICO E TECNOLÓGICO
O fisicalismo contemporâneo força a filosofia a lidar com o problema da causação mental: Como a mente é causalmente relevante em um mundo físico? Uma das saídas propostas, o epifenomenalismo, é visto por filósofos importantes como uma posição que preserva características essenciais à subjetividade sem contrariar os fatos científicos. No entanto, pode-se argumentar que a epistemologia dos mesmos e o caráter das leis naturais se chocam com as supostas vantagens do epifenomenalismo.
Contemporary physicalism compels philosophy to deal with the problem of mental causation: How is the mind causally relevant in a physical world? A proposed solution, epiphenomenalism, is seen by major philosophers as a position that preserves features that are crucial to subjectivity without clashing with scientific facts. Still, the epistemology of the latter and the character of natural laws arguably contradict the alleged advantages of epiphenomenalism.

The subject of this dissertation is the problem of mental causation: the problem of how the mental is able to causally interact with the physical. I show that the problem of mental causation, as it is presented in contemporary philosophy of mind, is a pseudo-problem. My claim is that contemporary philosophy of mind has misidentified what it is about mental causation that we need, but struggle, to understand. This is because contemporary philosophy of mind labours under a misapprehension of what mental causation is supposed to be. In most discussions of the problem of mental causation, mental causation is presented as a cause-effect relation between mental and physical entities. I call this understanding of mental causation the relational understanding of mental causation: Relational understanding of mental causation: mental causation is a matter of mental items (events, processes or states) standing in causal relations to physical events, e.g. bodily movements. The relational understanding of mental causation is widely endorsed largely because it is thought essential to our conception of ourselves as agents who act intentionally and who bear moral responsibility. I argue that while intentional action does entail the existence of causation which involves mentality – something which is worthy of the name ‘mental causation’ – the mental causation intentional action presupposes ought not to be understood in relational terms. When we say that someone acted intentionally because of what she believed, desired or intended, the concepts belief, desire and intention do not refer to items which stand in causal relations to bodily movements. I will defend this thesis by examining metaphysics of action and the nature of agency.

In the past years, the relevance of Thomas Aquinas's theory of cognition for contemporary debates on epistemology has been widely discussed. That theory claims that mind and world are formally identical and that this relationship overcomes various problems associated with scepticism concerning mental representation. The proposal, however, is grounded on the idea that the world can act on the mind through a relation of formal causation. This thesis attempts to develop a Thomistic theory of formal causation which may be suitable for a realist account of mental representation and which may meet the requirements prompted by current discussions. The suggested view is grounded on Aquinas's metaphysics, according to which the world is constituted of substances. The claim that change is possible since substances are hylomorphically constituted (viz., metaphysically composed of form and matter) is defended. Aquinas's claim that some substances have forms which may act independently of matter is also supported. The paradigmatic examples are human souls, i.e. the forms of human beings, whose higher cognitive capacity, i.e. thinking, can be in principle carried on without the need of any material organ. A Thomistic theory of causation is subsequently proposed. It is argued that hylomorphism explains the distinction among four species of causes (material, formal, final and efficient). Aquinas's attempt to explain causal relations conditionally is developed along the lines suggested by John Mackie's INUS conditional analysis. Jaegwon Kim's implementation of Mackie's proposal through an object-based metaphysics of events is then adapted to the hylomorphical account of substances. On these grounds, a theory of formal causation can be proposed and applied to Aquinas's theory of mental representation. The ensuing proposal is offered not in the spirit of historical exegesis but as a substantive philosophical account and it is Thomistic only in the broad sense that it is built on Aquinas's metaphysics and is consistent with his claims on causation.

The mental causation literature tends towards certain presuppositions, including the tacit endorsement of physicalism, causal closure, and reductionism. Insofar as justification for these philosophical positions is offered at all, it is typically claimed that they are grounded in actual scientific practice. However, there are good reasons to believe that actual science does not support these philosophical positions. In this work, I consider some reasons to deny physicalism and causal closure, and critically present and evaluate pluralistic alternatives to reductionism. In light of this discussion, the problem of mental causation takes on an interesting and promising new form.

Mental causation is with us all the time. Being a table is different from being a human---although we are composed of physical particles, we have understanding, reason, or perception, which are able to make a difference in the physical world. In this dissertation, I have detail discussions of contemporary substance dualism, the mind-brain identity theory, and Jaegwon Kim's functionalism, and thus conclude that none of them can provide an appropriate account to the problem of mental causation. By distinguishing the mind from the body, substance dualists face the pairing problem: How does this particular mind unite with this particular body and thus interact? With the pairing problem, more and more philosophers accept physicalism. However, it is surprising that the problem of mental causation arises again from the heart of physicalism. It means that accepting physicalist ontology does not make this problem go away. On the contrary, basic physical assumptions can even be seen as the source of the current difficulties with mental causation. My preferred idea is that mental properties emerge from physical properties, and both of them together make an occurrence to cause an effect. Emergence makes mental causation autonomous and also avoids epiphenomenalism.

The aim of this work is to defend substance dualism by defeating two of its paramount potential defeaters. I will argue that a substance dualist position, neo-Thomistic hylomorphism, provides a solution to the causal pairing problem and a good explanation of neural correlates of consciousness. After an introductory first chapter, I'll explicate dualism's dominant potential defeaters in the next three chapters. Chapter 2 will clarify what neural correlates of consciousness are and the objection to dualism based on neural correlates. The following two chapters will distinguish and elucidate dualism's principal problem regarding mental causation, which I'll argue is the causal pairing problem. The fifth chapter will introduce and explain neo-Thomistic hylomorphism. Chapter 6 will apply neo-Thomistic hylomorphism to the causal pairing problem, providing a solution that appeals to a fundamental tenet of neo-Thomistic hylomorphism. In Chapter 7 I'll apply the view and an Aristotelian powers ontology to construct a model of neural correlates of consciousness that's intended to explain such correlations. The final chapter will offer a conclusion and briefly discuss relevant future research.

Natural science tells us that the world is fundamentally physical - everything is ultimately constituted by physical properties and governed by physical laws. How do we square this picture of the world with the apparent fact that there are genuine causal relations at levels that aren’t described by physics? The problem of mental causation is at the heart of this issue. There are probably two reasons for this. Firstly, if there are any non-physical properties at all, surely mental properties are among them. And secondly, the reality of mental causation is arguably more important to us than the reality of any other kind of causation. Without it, it would be hard for us to make sense of ourselves as agents with free will and moral responsibility. The main purpose of this thesis is to defend a view that accepts a scientific worldview and still allows for mental properties to exist, be non-physical, and be genuine causes of actions and behaviour. Some philosophers are pessimistic that all these goals can be achieved. They think that the only way for mental properties to fit into the causal structure of the world is if these mental properties are really physical properties. I do not find the argument for this view compelling. As I will show, it relies on an implausibly strong constraint on causes that must be amended. Once amended, a new position emerges, the so-called Subset view, which is actually motivated by the very premises that initially pushed us towards a reductive view of mental properties.

I present a thorough metaphysics of causal overdetermination, which yields new insights into mental causation, our world's counterfactual structure, and properties of moral responsibility. I investigate causal overdetermination in three related papers.In "Overdetermination Underdetermined," I show that overdetermination has been underspecified in the literature, leading to a conflation of several important questions: (i) what is overdetermination?, (ii) is overdetermination physically possible, and if so, how ubiquitous is it?, and (iii) is overdetermination a problem?I diagnose the source of confusion as the following definition implicitly used in the literature:(OD) Causes c1 and c2 overdetermine an effect e if c1 and c2 are (i) distinct, (ii) they occur, and (iii) they are each sufficient to cause e in the way that it occurs.I hold that this is not in fact a definition, but a schema with several open definienda: distinctness, occurrence, causation, and precision in the way that the effect occurs. Different satisfiers yield different notions of overdetermination. Answers to the central questions regarding overdetermination are sensitive to the kinds of overdetermination in play. Once we are clear on what overdetermination is and to which sorts we are ontologically committed, we can also be clear on what is at stake for each debate--and it typically is not acceptance or denial of causal overdetermination per se.In "Overdetermination and Counterfactual Sensitivity," I show that the counterfactual structure of the world is richer than previously thought. I introduce a novel class of events that are insensitive to the additive force of multiple causes. They do not covary counterfactually with the multiplicity or force of their causes. They are to be contrasted with sensitive effects, which counterfactually covary according to the number and sorts of causes they have.In "Moral Overdetermination", I examine causal overdetermination in the context of moral responsibility. I use cases of moral overdetermination to introduce puzzles about the relationship between causal responsibility and moral responsibility that deserve further exploration. Along the way, I consider the instrumental value of various reductive theories of causation as guides to moral assessment, and I unearth interesting consequences for moral luck and for collective responsibility.

My aim in this thesis is to explain how a non-reductionist metaphysics can accommodate the causal relevance of the psychological and of the special sciences generally. According to physicalism, all behavior is caused by brain-states; given "folk-psychology", behavior (such as the waving of my hand) is caused by some psychological state. If psychological states are distinct from brain states (event dualism), then our behavior is overdetermined and this, it is claimed, is unacceptable. I argue that this consequence is not unacceptable. I claim that our explanatory practice should guide our ontological commitment. If we can offer true explanations that appeal to more than one event (or property), then we are committed to overdetermination for the event explained. I argue that accepting overdetermination is not absurd and that we can give an adequate account of causal relevance for psychological and other supervenient properties. The result is a partial defense of both property and event pluralism. Recent work by Davidson, Fodor, Jackson, Kim, Pettit and Yablo receives explicit and critical discussion.

One of the most interesting developments in recent psychological theorising has been a growing appreciation of the need for a viable theory of mental causation. Hitherto, the prospects for reconciling what seems to be the uniquely rational character of human thought and action with the non-rational mechanistic workings of the natural world have appeared to be limited or even illusory, and the pursuit of reconciliation of this sort has therefore formerly been dismissed as being either impossible of completion or inappropriate for contemplation. Much of the scepticism concerning the role of causal processes in human thought and action was dispelled, however, by the philosopher Donald Davidson, who argues that not only is human action capable of being caused by the actor's thoughts and desires, but that only when such action is so caused, can it be rational. Davidson's proposal for the reconciliation of human rationality with causal necessitation is articulated in his theory of Anomalous Monism. According to this theory, there exists what may be termed an ontological-conceptual distinction between events themselves and the characters or properties that are attributed to events by human observers, and it is through recognition of this distinction that one discovers how mental events, that is, events that are amenable to description in the psychological vocabulary, are causally efficacious yet free from the constraints typically associated with the necessity and sufficiency of causal laws. Anomalous Monism, if it were workable, would therefore resolve the paradox according to which human mentality is at once integrated in, and yet unconstrained by, the mechanistic natural world, by demonstrating the compatibility of the facts of causation with the intuitions of folk psychology. However, close examination of Anomalous Monism reveals it to rely on logically flawed anti-realist principles concerning the characters of events, properties and causation. It follows from this that the theory itself must be rejected, but the task that it was devised to undertake, the formulation of a viable theory of mental causation, need not be similarly discarded. Rather, what remains is the challenge of delineating an alternative theory, one that withstands logical scrutiny whilst addressing what is characteristic of human mental processes, and thereby what is characteristic of mental causation. The theory of Direct Realism that is derived from the broader philosophical realism of John Anderson provides the materials for meeting this challenge. According to Direct Realism, mental phenomena are relational situations obtaining between certain organisms (including humans) and their environments. As such, mental phenomena are included in the range of phenomena occurring in the natural world and they are therefore subject to all of its ways of working, including its deterministic mechanisms. The particular challenge that a Direct Realist theory of mental causation faces, that of demonstrating that relational situations can be causal, is revealed upon examination of the character of causation to be unproblematic. Furthermore, the seeming incompatibility between human rationality and natural necessitation is resolved when it is acknowledged that, rather than be an inherent feature of thought and action, logical structure is a characteristic of the natural environment that organisms are at times sensitive to, as revealed by its effects on the characters of their thoughts and actions. Far from being remote or illusory, the prospects for reconciling human mentality with the causal mechanisms of the natural world are discovered in the present thesis to be favourable when a realist approach to the characters of both mental events and causation is adopted.

One of the most interesting developments in recent psychological theorising has been a growing appreciation of the need for a viable theory of mental causation. Hitherto, the prospects for reconciling what seems to be the uniquely rational character of human thought and action with the non-rational mechanistic workings of the natural world have appeared to be limited or even illusory, and the pursuit of reconciliation of this sort has therefore formerly been dismissed as being either impossible of completion or inappropriate for contemplation. Much of the scepticism concerning the role of causal processes in human thought and action was dispelled, however, by the philosopher Donald Davidson, who argues that not only is human action capable of being caused by the actor�s thoughts and desires, but that only when such action is so caused, can it be rational. Davidson�s proposal for the reconciliation of human rationality with causal necessitation is articulated in his theory of Anomalous Monism. According to this theory, there exists what may be termed an ontological-conceptual distinction between events themselves and the characters or properties that are attributed to events by human observers, and it is through recognition of this distinction that one discovers how mental events, that is, events that are amenable to description in the psychological vocabulary, are causally efficacious yet free from the constraints typically associated with the necessity and sufficiency of causal laws. Anomalous Monism, if it were workable, would therefore resolve the paradox according to which human mentality is at once integrated in, and yet unconstrained by, the mechanistic natural world, by demonstrating the compatibility of the facts of causation with the intuitions of folk psychology. However, close examination of Anomalous Monism reveals it to rely on logically flawed anti-realist principles concerning the characters of events, properties and causation. It follows from this that the theory itself must be rejected, but the task that it was devised to undertake, the formulation of a viable theory of mental causation, need not be similarly discarded. Rather, what remains is the challenge of delineating an alternative theory, one that withstands logical scrutiny whilst addressing what is characteristic of human mental processes, and thereby what is characteristic of mental causation. The theory of Direct Realism that is derived from the broader philosophical realism of John Anderson provides the materials for meeting this challenge. According to Direct Realism, mental phenomena are relational situations obtaining between certain organisms (including humans) and their environments. As such, mental phenomena are included in the range of phenomena occurring in the natural world and they are therefore subject to all of its ways of working, including its deterministic mechanisms. The particular challenge that a Direct Realist theory of mental causation faces, that of demonstrating that relational situations can be causal, is revealed upon examination of the character of causation to be unproblematic. Furthermore, the seeming incompatibility between human rationality and natural necessitation is resolved when it is acknowledged that, rather than be an inherent feature of thought and action, logical structure is a characteristic of the natural environment that organisms are at times sensitive to, as revealed by its effects on the characters of their thoughts and actions. Far from being remote or illusory, the prospects for reconciling human mentality with the causal mechanisms of the natural world are discovered in the present thesis to be favourable when a realist approach to the characters of both mental events and causation is adopted.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Sydney, 2004.
Title from title screen (viewed 14 May 2008). Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the School of Psychology, Faculty of Science. Includes bibliographical references. Also available in print form.

Mental causation between the material and the immaterial has been problematic for interactionist substance dualism ever since its first major proponent René Descartes. The contemporary philosopher Jaegwon Kim believes he has found an argument that shows exactly why an immaterial event cannot be said to cause a material event; he calls this the pairing problem argument. This thesis will argue that there is actually sufficient empirical evidence to suggest that Kim’s argument is unsuccessful due to one of its premises being false. Furthermore, this thesis will also argue that interactionist substance dualism is actually a philosophically viable alternative, and lastly ways are sketched of how one might go about constructing such a view responsibly.

Thesis advisor: Ronald K. Tacelli
This dissertation arose from concerns that the prevalent philosophy of materialism which reduces everything to matter has inadvertently contributed to the ecological destruction of the planet, and an impoverished understanding of human nature. Conceptual arguments and empirical data cry out for a philosophy beyond materialism (or its current avatar Physicalism) that moves us beyond 17th century classical science, making use of 20th century quantum science to better understand our world. Such a new philosophy would embed a new scientific paradigm that incorporates both the first person point of view and the third person "no point of view."The main issue I engage in this dissertation is whether consciousness can be explained by Physicalism. While functionalism, the dominant theory of Physicalism, answers many questions related to consciousness, it leaves major ones unanswered. I offer a critique of Physicalism using conceptual arguments and empirical data encompassing what I call the "chemistry of attention." I also offer innovative proposals toward a philosophical approach I term "Aspect Monism" that builds on earlier monist philosophies (Spinoza) while incorporating dualistic features, suggesting that this new approach would better account for consciousness. The proximate history of Physicalism to either explain the mind away or reduce it to the brain from Behaviorism through Identity Theory to Functionalism is laid out as well as the difficulty in establishing the boundaries of Physicalism.The project utilizes conceptual arguments to critique Physicalism in three areas of concern: What is left out? What is assumed? What is causing methodological confusion? The areas of qualia, cognition, intentionality, meaning and personhood are left out. This is demonstrated, in part, by various thought experiments like the inverted spectrum argument, the Chinese nation argument, the zombies' argument, the knowledge argument and the Chinese room argument. The problem of causal closure of the physical is that which is assumed. The ambiguity with respect to method is that which causes confusion.Empirical data from the neurosciences (EEG, ERP, fMRI experiments during meditation; OCD and phobia treatment; placebo and nocebo effect) are used to critically analyze Physicalism with respect to mental states and causation and the analysis of such data points to a close relationship between attention and changes in the brain, and subsequently to the collapse of Physicalism into Epiphenomenalism. Such a metaphysical approach to consciousness is suggested from, and provides a home for, the neurophysical approaches to the origins of consciousness. I present a neuro-quantum perspective using Stapp and Penrose-Hameroff who suggest these origins via neuroscience and quantum physics.As we search for a new scientific paradigm and consequently a new metaphysics that takes into consideration the objective and the subjective, and the inner and the outer, a new philosophy and a new scientific paradigm which incorporates both the first person point of view and the third person "no point of view" data is the need of the hour
Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2011
Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
Discipline: Philosophy

This thesis presents a defense of the view that externalism cannot be a theoretical basis of a mentalistic causal-explanatory science, even though such a theoretical basis is implicitly or explicitly adopted by many cognitive scientists. Externalism is a theory in philosophy of mind which states that mental properties are relations between the core realizers of an individual&rsquo
s mental states (such as brain states) and certain things that exist outside those realizers (such as what the content of a mental state corresponds to in the actual world.) After clarifications regarding the term &ldquo
externalism&rdquo
and reviewing the history and the various forms of the externalist theory, it is argued that the properties offered by externalist theories as mental properties have no causal influence on behavior, and therefore cannot causally explain it. The argument is largely based on a method of comparing the causal powers of entities which are identical in all respects except their mental properties (as construed by externalism), and the conclusions are supported by metaphysical reflections on causation, dispositions, relational properties and historical properties. Objections to the defended view are considered and refuted. The thesis is written in the style of modern analytic philosophy.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T17:27:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Monica Aiub da Costa.pdf: 1133634 bytes, checksum: 2b3bbbb81de90d9935f6cff2e1982e44 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-03-16
This work is dedicated to review the concept of semiosis in clinic, starting from the articulation of the concepts of plasticity, mental causation and semiosis in Charles Sanders Peirce's philosophy, and in neuroscience. Its development perceived the means of semiosis and its implications in therapy, especially in the mental causation issues, considering that physical states and mental states interact from semiotic processes, generating plasticity, both in cellular and cognitive levels. Were addressed, specially, the concepts of plasticity, mental causation and semiosis, articulated from Peirce's phenomenology, metaphysics and cosmology. The dialogue stablished between Peirce and neuroscience provided the magnification of the semiosis concept in clinical listening and its consequent implications in making diagnoses, since, starting from Peirce's contributions, semiosis can't be understood in a typological way, due to the fact of being an open system, an auto generated and creative network of signs, covering aspects from cells to incorporated technology, and constituting in a plastic way, continuous, in multiple interactions with innovations promoted by chance
Este trabalho dedica-se a uma revisão do conceito de semiose em clinica a partir da articulação dos conceitos de plasticidade, causação mental e semiose na filosofia de Charles Sanders Peirce e em neurociência. Seu desenvolvimento compreendeu as formas de semiose e suas implicações terapêuticas, em especial nas questões da causação mental, considerando que estados físicos e mentais interagem a partir dos processos semi6ticos, gerando plasticidade tanto em níveis celulares quanto cognitivos. Foram abordados, especialmente, os conceitos de plasticidade, causação mental e semiose, articulados a partir da fenomenologia, da metafisica e da cosmologia de Peirce. O dialogo estabelecido entre Peirce e a Neurociência propiciou a ampliação do conceito de semiose na escuta clinica e suas consequentes implicações na elaboração dos diagn6sticos, uma vez que, a partir das contribuições de Peirce, a semiose não pode ser compreendida de maneira tipol6gica devido ao fato de ser um sistema aberto, uma rede de signos autogerava e criativa, abarcando aspectos das células a tecnologia incorporada e constituindo-se de maneira plástica, contínua, em múltiplas interações com as novidades promovidas pelo acaso

Dans cette thèse je défends l'élimination des concepts d'attitudes propositionnelles. Dans le premier chapitre, je présente les thèses éliminativistes en philosophie de l'esprit et des sciences cognitives contemporaines. Il y a deux types d'éliminativisme: le matérialisme éliminatif et l'éliminativisme des concepts. Il est possible d'éliminer les concepts soit des théories naïves soit des théories scientifiques. L'éliminativisme à propos des concepts d'attitudes propositionnelles que je défends requière le second type d'élimination. Dans les trois chapitres suivants je donne trois arguments en faveur de cette thèse. Je commence par soutenir que la théorie interventionniste de la causalité ne fonde pas nos jugements de causalité mentale. Ensuite je montre que nos concepts d'attitudes propositionnelles ne sont pas des concepts d'espèces naturelles car ils groupent ensemble les états des différents modules d'une architecture massivement modulaire, la thèse de modularité massive faisant partie, je l'affirme, de notre meilleur programme de recherche. Finalement, mon troisième argument repose sur l’élimination du concept de contenu mental de nos théories. Dans les deux derniers chapitres de la thèse, je défends ce dernier argument. Tout d'abord, je réfute l'argument du succès selon lequel étant donné que les psychologues emploient le concept de contenu mental et ce faisant produisent de la bonne science ce concept ne devrait pas être éliminé. Ensuite je rejette une autre façon d'éliminer ce concept, celle choisie par les théoriciens de la cognition étendue. Pour cela je réfute le meilleur argument qui a été donné en faveur de cette thèse: l'argument du système
In this dissertation, I argue for the elimination of propositional attitudes concepts. In the first chapter I sketch the landscape of eliminativism in contemporary philosophy of mind and cognitive science. There are two kinds of eliminativism: eliminative materialism and concept eliminativism. One can further distinguish between folk and science eliminativism about concepts: whereas the former says that the concept should be eliminated from our folk theories, the latter says that the concept should be eliminated form our scientific theories. The eliminativism about propositional attitudes concepts I defend is a species of the latter. In the next three chapters I put forward three arguments for this thesis. I first argue that the interventionist theory of causation cannot lend credit to our claims of mental causation. I then support the thesis by showing that propositional attitudes concepts aren't natural kind concepts because they cross-cut the states of the modules posited by the thesis of massive modularity, a thesis which, I contend, is part of our best research-program. Finally, my third argument rests on science eliminativism about the concept of mental content. In the two last chapters of the dissertation I first defend the elimination of the concept of mental content from the success argument, according to which as psychologists produce successful science while using the concept of mental content, the concept should be conserved. Then, I dismiss an alternative way of eliminating the concept, that is, the way taken by proponents of extended cognition, by refuting what I take to be the best argument for extended cognition, namely, the system argument

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
Anomalous monism is a theory in the philosophy of mind put forth by Donald Davidson in the 1970s. Although influential at the time, it received numerous criticisms, and it is now widely rejected. The present Master s Dissertation argues for a revision of the reasons for which anomalous monism should be rejected. According to a well known objection in the literature, anomalous monism entails the thesis of property epiphenomenalism, and should be rejected because this consequence is unacceptable. It is proposed that this objection is inadequate in its two crucial steps. First, property epiphenomenalism does not seem to follow from anomalous monism, and, second, there seems to be no sufficient reason for a decisive rejection of property epiphenomenalism. Despite this, there are alternative reasons for rejecting anomalous monism, which concern the justification of the monist thesis. At least one of the premises Davidson takes to support it appears to be false, and, additionally, the very possibility of the monism at issue is threatened by problems in the ontology of events it assumes.
O monismo anômalo é uma teoria em filosofia da mente proposta por Donald Davidson na década de 1970. Embora influente na época, essa teoria recebeu inúmeras críticas e é atualmente amplamente rejeitada. A presente dissertação argumenta em favor de uma revisão das razões pelas quais o monismo anômalo deve ser rejeitado. De acordo com uma objeção bem conhecida na literatura, o monismo anômalo implica a tese do epifenomenismo de propriedades e deve ser rejeitado porque essa consequência é inaceitável. Propõe-se que essa objeção é inadequada em seus dois passos cruciais. Em primeiro lugar, o epifenomenismo de propriedades não parece se seguir do monismo anômalo, e, em segundo, não parece haver razões suficientes para uma rejeição decisiva do epifenomenismo de propriedades. Apesar disso, há razões alternativas para se rejeitar o monismo anômalo, que dizem respeito à justificação da tese monista. Pelo menos uma das premissas que Davidson empregou em sua defesa parece falsa, e, adicionalmente, a própria possibilidade do monismo em questão é ameaçada por dificuldades na ontologia de eventos que pressupõe.

Submitted by JOSIANE SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA (josianeso) on 2017-07-04T11:33:40Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Cínthia Roso Oliveira_.pdf: 1706511 bytes, checksum: 1a1617a80917349cfb5347c0c3474a67 (MD5)
Made available in DSpace on 2017-07-04T11:33:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Cínthia Roso Oliveira_.pdf: 1706511 bytes, checksum: 1a1617a80917349cfb5347c0c3474a67 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-04-06
CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
PROSUP - Programa de Suporte à Pós-Gradução de Instituições de Ensino Particulares
O objetivo desta tese é investigar se há uma relação mente-corpo e, se sim, como podemos caracterizá-la. No primeiro capítulo, investigamos em que sentido há um problema mente e corpo, pois se compreendermos que os conceitos mentais são confusos e podem ser eliminados, ou que são significativos, mas podem ser reduzidos às explicações dos processos físicos no corpo, não faz sentido dizer que há um problema mente-corpo. No entanto, os qualia são aspectos mentais que resistem à eliminação ou à redução. Além disso, se compreendermos que a ideia de causação é um princípio epistêmico e que não se refere, de fato, a coisas no mundo que se relacionam, investigar uma possível interferência metafísica da mente, em especial dos qualia, no corpo também não faria sentido. No segundo capítulo, investigamos possíveis explicações para a conexão psicofísica que faz com que a mente em geral, e os qualia em particular, pareça influenciar os nossos comportamentos. A perspectiva dualista substancial seria insatisfatória, dentre outros problemas, na medida em que a explicação de como se dá a conexão psicofísica depende da aceitação da existência de Deus, algo questionável. Investigamos, então, algumas propostas monistas que defendem uma perspectiva não-reducionista em relação aos eventos mentais. As perspectivas de Davidson e Chalmers mostram-se frágeis em explicar o poder causal dos eventos mentais e, embora Kim consiga evitar o problema do epifenomenismo, ele assume uma posição eliminativista quanto aos qualia, o que não resolveria o problema. No terceiro capítulo, procuramos avaliar em que sentido a perspectiva não-reducionista de David Bohm sobre a relação mente-corpo conseguiria responder ao problema do epifenomenismo. Para ele, os aspectos mental e material existem um em participação com o outro na realidade e aí está a base da compreensão do ‘poder causal do mental’, que, como potencial atividade da informação, tem o poder de permitir que uma informação ativa nova atualize-se, alterando o seu aspecto material. A partir dessa perspectiva, pode-se compreender a consciência fenomênica como um tipo de ordem implícita muito sutil e complexa, que pode emergir de ordens implícitas menos sutis, as quais apresentam aspecto quase-mental. No quarto capítulo, argumentamos que a participação mente-corpo pode ser considerada uma conexão causal, compreendendo-a como uma categoria de causação, que estabelece um vínculo particular entre duas coisas, o que seria compatível com a novidade qualitativa que existe na ação humana. Neste capítulo ainda, defendemos que a perspectiva de Bohm sobre a participação mente-matéria na informação ativa pode ser compreendida como uma interação entre as quatro causas: formal, final, eficiente e material. As quatro funcionam como uma causação única, modificando-se a si mesma enquanto outra. E isso explicaria a capacidade que os seres humanos têm de automodificarem-se e, consequentemente, o poder causal dos qualia de interferir no comportamento humano. Por fim, no quinto capítulo, argumentamos que o ser humano pode ser compreendido como um sistema complexo que se auto-organiza mediante as suas relações com o mundo. Estabelecemos a relação entre a autocausação no sistema humano como um tipo de auto-organização secundária (de acordo com Debrun), que pressupõe a recriação de sua própria forma. Sustentamos, ademais, que a relação entre os diversos níveis hierárquicos de organização no ser humano dá-se por causação circular, na qual as partes interferem no todo, e ele, por sua vez, retroage sobre as partes, permitindo a emergência de novas propriedades. Além disso, esclarecemos que só podemos compreender a participação mente e corpo no ser humano como uma auto-organização de um sistema complexo em um mundo. Consideramos que também, entre o ser humano e o mundo (este compreendido como um ambiente natural e cultural, que inclui diversos sistemas, inclusive, outros seres humanos), há causação circular, dentre vários outros tipos de determinação. Portanto, a resposta apresentada para o problema mente-corpo é que a mente, incluindo os qualia, não pode ser reduzida aos processos físicos do corpo. A consciência fenomênica, como aspecto mental por excelência, refere-se à subjetividade da experiência do ser humano no mundo; só ele pode saber o que ele sente com as suas experiências e como as sente. Esse nível fenomênico emergiria de um nível protofenomênico, no qual já há um aspecto mental (quase-mental) compreendido como potencial atividade da informação, considerado como uma interação das causas eficiente, formal e final, que, ao interagirem com a causa material, aspecto material (atual atividade da informação), produzem uma mudança em si mesmos qua outro. Essa compreensão do aspecto mental como potencial atividade da informação permite compreender o poder causal do aspecto mental e como o nível fenomênico emerge dos níveis protofenomênicos da realidade, os qualia, aspectos mentais de sistemas complexos como o ser humano, podem ser compreendidos como exibindo um poder causal sobre o corpo.
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether there is a mind-body relationship and, if so, how we can characterize it. In the first chapter we investigate in what sense there is a mind-body problem, for if we understand that mental concepts are confusing and can be eliminated, or that they are significant, but can be reduced to the explanations of physical processes in the body, it does not make sense to say that there is a mind-body problem. However, qualia are mental aspects that resist elimination or reduction. Furthermore, if we understand that the idea of causation is an epistemic principle and does not actually refer to things in the world, investigating a possible interference of mind, especially of qualia, into body would also make no sense. In the second chapter, we investigate possible explanations for the psychophysical connection that makes mind in general, and qualia in particular, seem to influence our behaviors. Substantial dualistic perspective would be unsatisfactory, among other problems, insofar as the explanation of how the psychophysical connection takes place depends on accepting the existence of God, which is something questionable. We then investigate some monistic proposals that advocate a non-reductionist perspective on mental events. The perspectives of Davidson and Chalmers are fragile in explaining the causal power of mental events; and although Kim is able to avoid the problem of epiphenomenalism, he assumes an eliminativist position on qualia, which would not solve the problem. In the third chapter, we tried to evaluate in what sense David Bohm’s non-reductionist perspective on the mind-body relationship could answer to the problem of epiphenomenalism. For him, the mental and material aspects exist in participation with each other in reality, and therein lies the basis of the understanding of the ‘causal power of the mental’, which, as a potential activity of information, has the power to allow active information update itself by changing its material aspect. From this perspective, we can comprehend the phenomenal consciousness as a very subtle and complex sort of implicate order, that may emerge from less subtle implicate orders which have a mind-like aspect. In the fourth chapter, we argue that mind-body participation can be considered a causal connection, understanding it as a category of causation that establishes a particular link between two things, which would be compatible with the qualitative novelty that exists in human action. In this chapter we further argue that Bohm’s perspective on mind-matter participation in active information can be understood as an interaction between the four causes: formal, final, efficient, and material. They function as a single causation, modifying itself as being another. And this would explain the ability of humans to self-cause and, consequently, the causal power of qualia to interfere with human behavior. Finally, in the fifth chapter, we argue that the human being can be understood as a complex system that organizes itself through its relations with the world. We establish the relation between self-causation in the human system as a kind of secondary self-organization (according to Debrun), which presupposes the re-creation of its own form. We maintain that the relationship between the various hierarchical levels of organization in the human being occur by circular causation in which the parts interfere in the whole, and this, in turn, retroacts on the parts, allowing the emergence of new properties. In addition, we clarify that we can only understand the mind-body participation in the human being as a self-organization of a complex system in a world. We also consider that there is circular causation, among other types of determination, between the human being and the world (understood as a natural and cultural environment that includes several systems, besides other human beings). So the answer presented to the mind-body problem is that the mind, including qualia, cannot be reduced to the physical processes of the body. The phenomenal consciousness, as the mental aspect par excellence, refers to the subjectivity of the experience of human beings in the world; only one can know what and how they feel with their experiences. This phenomenal level would emerge from a protophenomenal level, in which there is already a mental (mind-like) aspect understood as a potential activity of information, considered as an efficient, formal and final interaction of causes, that when interacting with material cause, material aspect (actual active information), produces a change in oneself qua another. This understanding of the mental aspect as a potential activity of information enables us to understand the causal power of the mental aspect and as the phenomenal level emerges from the protophenomenal levels of reality, the qualia, mental aspect of complex systems like human beings, can be understood as exhibiting a causal power over the body.

Searle’s theory of Biological Naturalism has been largely ignored in the philosophical literature and Searle’s commentators are confused by his seemingly contradictory views. In this dissertation I attempt to make sense of Biological Naturalism. In chapter 2 I will ascertain which concerns prevent Searle’s readers from understanding his position. The remaining chapters aim to dissolve the tensions and dispel any confusion. Chapter 3 considers Searle’s notion of first-person ontology, finding that it expresses a belief that experiences are essentially subjective and qualitative. In chapter 4 I consider the notions of levels of description, causal reduction and what Searle means by causation and realisation. Chapter 5 turns to the question of how to categorise Searle’s position. Many of his critics charge him with being a property dualist. By highlighting the difference between the meaning of irreducibility intended by the property dualist and Searle I show that there is sufficient difference in their use of the term so as to reject an interpretation of Biological Naturalism as a form of property dualism. Chapter 6 is where I turn to the other end of the physicalism/dualism spectrum and assess whether Searle should be seen as holding a form of identity theory. I first argue for a neutral form of identity that I call real identity, which does not include the inherent reductive privileging of standard identity. I then argue that Searle should be seen as advocating a form of real identity theory; a form of token identity theory which does not privilege the physical over the mental. In chapter 7 I return to the main barriers to making sense of Biological Naturalism which I identified in chapter 2 and lay out my response to each. I conclude with a coherent interpretation of Searle’s position.

It has often been argued that John Searle’s theory of mind, biological naturalism, due to its commitment to mental irreducibility amounts to no more than disguised property dualism. I suggest that a thorough analysis of Searle’s somewhat unusual views on the nature of reduction reveals this irreducibility to be not a metaphysical relation between mental properties and physical but one concerned only with the semantics of the respective terms used to refer to these. As a result, I argue, irreducibility in his sense is insufficient to support a metaphysical conclusion like property dualism. Finally, to reinforce this point I give a concrete example of a potential physicalist view which is compatible with the analysis of irreducibility as semantic but not as metaphysical and hence on my reasoning remains open to Searle.

According to the dominant tradition in Christianity and many other religions, human beings are both knowers and actors: beings with conscious beliefs about the world who sometimes act intentionally guided by these beliefs. According to philosopher of mind Robert Cummins the “received view” among philosophers of mind is epiphenomenalism, according to which mental causation does not exist: neural events are the underlying causes of both behavior and belief which explains the correlation (not causation) between belief and behavior. Beliefs do not, in virtue of their semantic content, enter the causal chain leading to action, beliefs are always the endpoint of a causal chain. If that is true the theological anthropology of many religious traditions is false. JP Moreland draws attention to two different ways of doing metaphysics: serious metaphysics and shopping-list metaphysics. The difference is that the former involves not only the attempt to describe  the phenomena one encounter, it also involves the attempt of locating them, that is explaining how the phenomena is possible and came to be given the constraints of a certain worldview. For a physicalist these constraints include the atomic theory of matter and the theories of physical, chemical and biological evolution.   Mental properties are challenging phenomena to locate within a physicalist worldview, and some physicalists involved in “serious metaphysics” have therefore eliminated them from their worldview. Most however accept them, advocating “non-reductive physicalism” according to which mental properties supervene on physical processes. Even if one allow mental properties to supervene on physical processes, the problem of mental causation remains. If mental properties are irreducible to and therefore distinct from physical properties, as the non-reductive physicalists claim, they cannot exert causal powers if one accepts the causal closure of the physical domain – which one must, if one is a “serious physicalist” according to physicalist philosopher of mind Jaegwon Kim.   Alvin Plantinga, in his Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism, shows that if mental properties, such as the propositional content of beliefs, are causally inefficacious, then evolution has not been selecting cognitive faculties that are reliable, in the sense of being conducive to true beliefs. If the content of our beliefs does not affect our behavior, the content of our belief is irrelevant from an evolutionary standpoint, and so the content-producing part of our cognitive faculties are irrelevant from an evolutionary standpoint. The “reliability” – truth-conduciveness – of our cognitive faculties can therefore not be explained by evolution, and therefore not located within the physicalist worldview. The only way in which the reliability of our cognitive faculties can be located is if propositional content is relevant for behavior.   If we however eliminate or deny the reliability of our cognitive faculties, then we have abandoned any chance of making a rational case for our position, as that would presuppose the reliability that we are denying. But if propositional content is causally efficacious, then that either – if we are non-reductive physicalists and mental properties are taken to be irreducible to physical properties – implies that the causal closure of the physical domain is false or - if we are reductive physicalists and not eliminativists regarding mental properties - it shows that matter qua matter can govern itself by rational argumentation, in which we have a pan-/localpsychistic view of matter. Either way, we have essentially abandoned physicalism in the process of locating the reliability of our cognitive faculties within a physicalist worldview. We have also affirmed the theological anthropology of Christianity, in so far as the capacity for knowledge and rational action is concerned. Keywords: Philosophy of mind, mental causation, reductionism, physicalism, the evolutionary argument against naturalism, the myth of nonreductive materialism, Alvin Plantinga, Jaegwon Kim

Submitted by Paulo Uzai Júnior null (paulouzai@gmail.com) on 2016-08-25T20:01:19Z No. of bitstreams: 1 [final-final]Dissertação_Paulo Uzai Junior_Pos-Filosofia_ A relação mente-corpo em John Searle.pdf: 946382 bytes, checksum: 71f7585fff76b8a8396671fe967408be (MD5)
Approved for entry into archive by Ana Paula Grisoto (grisotoana@reitoria.unesp.br) on 2016-08-29T17:17:51Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 uzaijunior_p_me_mar.pdf: 946382 bytes, checksum: 71f7585fff76b8a8396671fe967408be (MD5)
Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-29T17:17:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 uzaijunior_p_me_mar.pdf: 946382 bytes, checksum: 71f7585fff76b8a8396671fe967408be (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-06-29
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Há mais de três décadas, o filósofo estadunidense John Rogers Searle voltou-se para as questões de filosofia da mente, donde apresenta sua solução para os variados problemas acerca da natureza do mental. Sua primeiro incursão se deu com o livro Intentionality, onde seu principal objetivo não era, num primeiro momento, solucionar problemas referentes a essa questão, mas sim oferecer uma fundamentação conceitual mais sólido para sua teoria dos atos de fala. Contudo, a partir deste livro Searle se volta decisivamente para questões propriamente de filosofia da mente. Um de seus principais focos é a relação entre mente-corpo, onde ele acredita que a solução teórico-cenceitual para tal questão não é tão difícil quanto pensamos. Porém ele não deixa de abordar uma série de outros temas afins que julga de extrema importância na consolidação de seu escopo teórico, tal como o problema da causação mental e a subjetividade humana. Dessa forma, a presente dissertação tem por objetivo principal apresentar, discutir e avaliar criticamente a solução que Searle propõe a esses quatro problemas centrais da filosofia da mente: relação mente-corpo, causação mental, subjetividade e intencionalidade. Os três primeiros capítulos têm por objetivo mostrar como Searle enxerga essas questões, ou seja, o que ele julga estar errado na filosofia da mente e qual seria a solução mais adequada. No capítulo quatro iremos apresentar as principais críticas à solução de John Searle, focando-nos numa abordagem temática. Dessa forma, apresentaremos críticas a esses quatro temas que Searle julga serem essenciais em filosofia da mente e sobre o qual construiu seu naturalismo biológico. Por fim, faremos uma avaliação crítica do que foi apresentado. Com isso iremos analisar qual o peso das críticas feitas à filosofia searlena, o que acreditamos estar correto nela e o que discordamos.
There is more than thirty years, the American philosopher John Rogers Searle turned around to the questions of philosophy of mind, whence presents his solution to varied problems about the nature of mental. His first incursion occurred with the book Intentionality, where your main objective was not to solve, at first, problems relating to this issue, but rather to offer a theoretical grounding more solid to his theory of speech acts. However, from this book Searle turns to questions specifically of philosophy of mind. One of his main focus is the relationship between mind-body, where he believes that the solution theoretical-conceptual for that question is not so difficult as we thought. Nevertheless he is not leave of to broach a number of other related topics that he considers of utmost importance in the consolidation of his theoretical scope, such as the causation mental problem and the human subjectivity. Thereby, the present dissertation have for main objective to show, to discuss and critically evaluate the solution that Searle proposes these four central problems of the philosophy of mind: mind-body relationship, mental causation, subjectivity and intentionality. The first three chapters aims to show as Searle see these questions, in other words, what he believes to be wrong in philosophy of mind and what would be the most appropriate solution. In chapter four, we will go to show the main critics to John Searle's solution, focusing in a thematic approach. Thus we will present critics of these four subjects that Searle believes to be essentials in philosophy of mind, about which built your biological naturalism. Lastly, we will make a critically evaluate of what was presented. Therewith we will go to analyze the what weight of criticisms to Searle's philosophy, what qe believe to be right and what we disagree.

Nesta tese, desenvolve-se um argumento explicativo da relação mente-corpo fundamentada na noção de mônada, ou substância simples, como elemento ontológico estruturante de um enfoque contemporâneo da mencionada relação. Na primeira parte da tese, de natureza crítica, analisam-se as teorias fisicistas contemporâneas da mencionada relação, a saber, a teoria de superveniência da mente, da emergência e da causação mental, com vistas a justificar a proposta de assunção de uma premissa dualista que visa, principalmente, propor, em contraste com o cenário epifenomenalista do fisicismo contemporâneo, uma ontologia da mente que seja compatível com as intuições realistas do senso comum e da psicológica popular sobre a força causal da mente no universo físico. Na segunda parte, de natureza positiva, propõe-se um argumento explicativo da relação mente-corpo partindo-se, para tanto, de uma assunção e duas premissas. A assunção afirma que a mente tem o mesmo importe ontológico da matéria física, sendo estes considerados como elementos composicionais, afirmação a qual se denomina dualismo elementar. No que se refere às premissas, propõe-se duas, a saber, a tese composicional holística, que afirma que a mente e a matéria são partes constitutivas de um todo chamado substância simples, e a tese composicional mereológica, que afirma que as substâncias simples ou mônadas compõem mereologicamente, por superveniência, a relação mente-corpo. Examinam-se também algumas objeções ao argumento monadista proposto.
This thesis offers an explanatory argument concerning the mind-body relation, an argument that is grounded on the notion of monad, or the simple substance, as an ontological element for proposing a contemporary approach to the mind-body relation. In the first part, a critique of the current physicalist theories of mind is given, namely, supervenience, emergence and mental causation, in order to justify the proposal of a dualist premiss which aims at an ontology of mind which satisfies the realistic intuitions of common sense and of folk psychology on the causal efficacy and relevance of the mind amid the physical, in opposition to the epiphenomenalist view of contemporary physicalist theories. In the second part, the positive one, we propose an explanatory argument for monadism about mind-body relations, based on an assumption and two premises. The assumption says that the mind has the same ontological import of the physical matter, and they, mind and matter, are considered to be elements entering the composition of psychophysical relations, an assumption called elementary dualism. Regarding the premises, we propose two, namely, the holistic compositional thesis, which asserts that mind and matter are parts entering the composition of true wholes called substances, and the mereological compositional thesis, which says that such simple substances compose, via supervenience, the mind-body relations. Some objections to the proposed monadist argument are examined and rejoindered as well.

This dissertation defends a certain view of the mind/body relation, according to which although there is a sense in which everything is physical, there is also a sense in which mental phenomena are irreducible to physical phenomena. The reason for this irreducibility, according to the position defended in this work, is that the mental has a certain normative character which the physical lacks. The central thesis defended in the first part of the work is the claim, advanced by Donald Davidson among others, that the mental realm is governed by constitutive principles of rationality. I both attempt to explain what this means precisely and provide arguments as to why we should think that it is true. Having defended the thesis, I then turn to show that it entails that certain mental phenomena are normative. If the normative is generally irreducible to the non-normative -- as I argue there is good reason to hold -- it then follows as a special case that the mental phenomena in question are irreducible to any (non-normative) physical phenomena. Is this form of antireductionism scientifically respectable? In the second part of the dissertation I attempt to establish that it is by showing that the view can be reconciled with a physicalistically acceptable account of mental causation. Focusing on the causal exclusion problem advanced by Jaegwon Kim among others, I critically discuss both reductive and certain nonreductive solutions to the problem that have been advanced by various philosophers. I then propose my own nonreductive solution to the problem, and attempt to draw out some of the consequences of this solution both for physicalism and for the nature of normativity.
text

abstract: Russellian monism is a promising theory of consciousness that attempts to capture the strengths of both physicalism and dualism while avoiding their weaknesses. I begin by showing that the Russellian monist’s chief anti-physicalist rival, emergentism, is unable to give an adequate solution to the exclusion problem. Specifically, they fall prey to what I call “the opacity problem.” That is, because the emergentist is committed to there being both a sufficient physical cause and a sufficient mental cause for our actions, it is unclear what difference the mental cause is making in bringing about the effect. This is because, for the physical cause to truly be a sufficient cause, it must be sufficient to bring about the effect as it occurred. This distinguishes mental overdetermination from non-problematic kinds of overdetermination (like double rock throwing cases). I then show how the constitutive Russellian monist is able to avoid the exclusion problem, while the emergent Russellian monist faces similar opacity problems to emergentism. Finally, I give an account of how the constitutive Russellian monist can give a response to the strongest objection against—the subject-summing problem. I argue that we only have translucent access to our conscious states—that is, only part of the essential nature of the state is revealed to us through introspection. I then argue that we have reason to think that part of the essential nature of the conscious state not revealed to us is involved in subject-summing.
Dissertation/Thesis
Masters Thesis Philosophy 2018

碩士
國立臺灣大學
哲學研究所
95
Could these three theses, mental realism, the physical causal closure principle and mental causation jointly be consistent with each other? It seems that mental realism and mental causation will result in the failure of the physical causal closure principle. On the other hand, the physical causal closure principle will threaten the other two theses. In this thesis I am concerned with the problem of how to make these three theses consistent. Kim is a philosopher who has done the best in dealing with the issue of mental causation. He rejects the existence of mental causation, because he thinks there is a paradox among the three theses. He argues that the real causal interaction happens only at the physical or brain level. For Kim, reductive physicalism is the best we can have. What I will do is to examine Kim’s argument, and I argue that he did not solve the problem. Some philosophers such as Baker reject the physical causal closure principle. According to Baker, causation is an epistemological principle, not a metaphysical doctrine. The existence of mental causation is an unnecessary worry. This view is similar to Hume’s position, so it has to face the same problems that Hume has to deal with. I do not accept the view that the causation is just psychological habit. I will assume that, these three theses are all true. And I will argue that the paradox derived from them is just a surface contradiction. I will contend that a proper theory of the downward causation can successfully solve the problem of mental causation. This thesis develops Searle’s biological naturalism and a new approach to the downward causation. By doing that, I will argue that the problem of mental causation can be resolved.

abstract: This thesis explores the conceptual span and plausibility of emergence and its applicability to the problem of mental causation. The early parts of the project explicate a distinction between weak and strong emergence as described by Jaegwon Kim. They also consider Kim's objections regarding the conceptual incoherence of strong emergence and the otiose nature of weak emergence. The paper then explores Mark Bedau's in-between conception of emergence and ultimately finds that middle conception to be both coherent and useful. With these three emergence distinctions in hand, the thesis goes on to explore Evan Thompson's recent work - Mind in Life (2010). In that work, Thompson advances a strong emergence approach to mind, whereby he concludes the incipient stages of cognition are found at the most basic levels of life, namely - biologic cells. Along the way, Thompson embraces holism and a nonfundamental/nonhierarchical physics in order to counter Jaegwon Kim's objections to the notion of downward causation needed for strong emergence. The thesis presents arguments against Thompson's holism and nonfundamental physics, while supporting his assertion regarding the incipient stages of cognition. It then combines an important distinction between mental causation and the experience of mental causation with Thompson's notion of incipient cognition to arrive at a dual realms approach to understanding mental causation.
Dissertation/Thesis
M.A. Philosophy 2013

The biomedical conceptualisation of “depression” as a disease entity stems from biological science rooted in a 17th century paradigm, and is an inappropriately positivist idea which discounts individual agency, disregards social context underscored in the descriptive epidemiology, fails to accommodate inter-subjectivity and process, medicalizes suffering, and serves a managed care model of health administration. A qualitative study using in-depth interviews was undertaken to elicit perspectives from individuals who had lived experience of biomedical (pharmacological) treatment for affective distress and who self-reported having attained satisfactory recovery. Thematic analysis of interview data clustered around three main categories: (1) multifactorial conceptual understandings; (2) context pertinent to the experience of distress and recovery – including a variety of stressors – and (3) trajectories of recovery from acute distress to negotiation of ambivalence toward treatment, enlisting of supports, and reclaiming of agency. Relationships with service providers marked by trust, empathy, and hope were valued as primary difference-makers.
May 2017