Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||The majority of contemporary philosophers of mind are physicalists. The majority of physicalists, however, are non-reductive physicalists. As nonreductive physicalists, these philosophers hold that a system's mental properties are different from a system's physical properties, that is, they hold that the sum total of mental facts about some system is a different set of facts than the sum total of physical facts about the same system. As physicalists, however, these nonreductivists hold that mental facts are nonetheless determined by physical facts, that is, they subscribe to the supervenience thesis, i.e., the thesis that no mental differences can obtain without physical differences obtaining. In this paper I take up the issue of how best to understand the notion of supervenience, especially in the light of recent advances in the neurosciences|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Robin Brown (2009). On Difficulties Facing the Formulation of the Doctrine of Supervenience. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (2):191-200.
Alexander Rueger (2000). Robust Supervenience and Emergence. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):466-491.
Renée Bilodeau (1993). L'inertie du Mental. Dialogue 32 (03):507-525.
R. Cranston Paull & Theodore Sider (1992). In Defense of Global Supervenience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52 (4):833-53.
Franz von Kutschera (1994). Global Supervenience and Belief. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23 (1):103 - 110.
Pete Mandik (2011). Supervenience and Neuroscience. Synthese 180 (3):443 - 463.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads66 ( #16,630 of 739,140 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #14,975 of 739,140 )
How can I increase my downloads?