Skip to main content
Log in

Causal emergentism

  • Analytic Philosophy In Slovenia
  • Published:
Acta Analytica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper I describe basic features of traditional (British) emergentism and Popper’s emergentist theory of consciousness and compare them to the contemporary versions of emergentism present in connectionist approach in cognitive sciences. I argue that despite their similarities, the traditional form, as well as Popper’s theory belong to strong causal emergentism and yield radically different ontological consequences compared to the weaker, contemporary version present in cognitive science. Strong causal emergentism denies the causal closure of the physical domain and introduces genuine new mental causal powers and genuine downward causation, while weak emergentism provides new insights in understanding the mechanisms and explanation that is compatible with physicalism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atherton, M. (1994), Women Philosophers of the Early Modern Period, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianopolis/Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, W., Abrahamsen, A. (2002), Connectionism and the Mind, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickle, J. (1998), Psychoneural Reduction: The New Wave, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broad, C.D. (1960), The Mind and its Place in nature, Littlefield, Adams & CO., Paterson, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caston, V. (1997), “Epiphenomenalism, Ancient and Modern”, The Philosophical Review, p. 309–363.

  • Clark, A. (1990), “Connectionism, Competence, and Explanation”, in M. Boden (ed.), The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence, Oxford University Press.

  • Crane, T. (2001a), Elements of mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, T. (2001b), “The Significance of Emergence,” in Carl Gillett and Barry Loewer (eds.), Physicalism and Its Discontents, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p. 207–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillet, C. (2002), “The Varieties of Emergence: Their Purposes, Obligations and Importance”, Grazer Philosophishe Studien, vol.65, p. 95–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. (1981), Mind in Science, Penguine books.

  • Hanson, S.J., Burr, D. (1990), “What connectionist models learn: Learning and representation in connectionist networks”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13, p. 471–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasker, W. (1999), The Emergent Self, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, C. (1981), “Towards a General Theory of Reduction I, II, III”, Dialogue.

  • Horgan, T. (2001), “Causal Compatibalism and the Exclusion Problem?”, Theoria, Vol. 16/1, No. 40, p. 95–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. (1993), Supervenience and Mind: Selected Philosophical Essays, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. (1998), Mind in a Physical World. MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markič, O. (1999), “Strict and loose emergentism”. In U. Maixner, P. Simon (ur.), Mataphisics in the post-metaphisical age: papers of the 22. International Wittgenstein Symposium, August 15–21, 1999. Kirchberg am Wechsel, Vol.7/12, p. 29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markič, O. (2002), “Nonreductive materialism and the problem of causal exclusion”, Grazer Philosophishe Studien, vol.63, p. 79–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markič, O. (2004), “Crane on the Mind-Body Problem and Emergence”, Croatian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 4, No. 11, p. 199–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, B. (1992), “The Rise and Fall of British Emergentism”, in A. Beckermann, H. Flohr, J. Kim (ed.) Emergence or Reduction? Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, T. (1994), “Emergent properties”, American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 91–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K., Eccles (1977), The Self and its Brain, Springer, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1949/1978), The Concept of Mind, Penguin Books.

  • Smolensky, P. (1988), “On the Proper Treatment of Connectionism”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11, p. 1–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, A. (1992), “A systematic View on its Historical Facets”, in A. Beckermann, H. Flohr, J. Kim (ed.) Emergence or Reduction? Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, A. (2002), “Emergentism, Irreducibility, and Downward causation”, Grazer Philosophishe Studien, vol.65, p. 77–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gulick, R. (2001). “Reduction, Emergence and Other Recent Options on the Mind/Body Problem”. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, No. 9–10, p. 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt, W. (1997), “Aggregativity: Reductive Heuristic for Finding Emergence”, Philosophy of Science, 64: S337-S384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Markič, O. Causal emergentism. Acta Anal 19, 65–81 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-004-1013-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-004-1013-8

Keywords

Navigation