What to say to a skeptical metaphysician? A defense manual for cognitive and behavioral scientists
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):603-627 (2004)
| Abstract | A wave of recent work in metaphysics seeks to undermine the anti-reductionist, functionalist consensus of the past few decades in cognitive science and philosophy of mind. That consensus apparently legitimated a focus on what systems do, without necessarily and always requiring attention to the details of how systems are constituted. The new metaphysical challenge contends that many states and processes referred to by functionalist cognitive scientists are epiphenomenal. It further contends that the problem lies in functionalism itself, and that, to save the causal significance of mind, it is necessary to re-embrace reductionism. We argue that the prescribed return to reductionism would be disastrous for the cognitive and behavioral sciences, requiring the dismantling of most existing achievements and placing intolerable restrictions on further work. However, this argument fails to answer the metaphysical challenge on its own terms. We meet that challenge by going on to argue that the new metaphysical skepticism about functionalist cognitive science depends on reifying two distinct notions of causality (one primarily scientific, the other metaphysical), then equivocating between them. When the different notions of causality are properly distinguished, it is clear that functionalism is in no serious philosophical trouble, and that we need not choose between reducing minds or finding them causally impotent. The metaphysical challenge to functionalism relies, in particular, on a naïve and inaccurate conception of the practice of physics, and the relationship between physics and metaphysics. Key Words: explanation; functionalism; mental causation; metaphysics; reductionism | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMarian David (1997). Kim's Functionalism. Philosophical Perspectives 11:133-48.
Carrie Figdor (2011). Semantics and Metaphysics in Informatics: Toward an Ontology of Tasks. Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2):222-226.
Matt McCormick (2003). Questions About Functionalism in Kant's Philosophy of Mind: Lessons for Cognitive Science. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 15 (2):255-266.
Ned Block (1996). What is Functionalism? In Donald M. Borchert (ed.), [Book Chapter]. MacMillan.
David Pineda (2001). Functionalism and Nonreductive Physicalism. Theoria 16 (40):43-63.
Ned Block (1980). Functionalism. In Ned Block (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology.
Robert D. Rupert (2006). Functionalism, Mental Causation, and the Problem of Metaphysically Necessary Effects. Noûs 40 (2):256-83.
Christopher S. Hill (1991). Sensations: A Defense of Type Materialism. Cambridge University Press.
Cosma Rohilla Shalizi (2004). Functionalism, Emergence, and Collective Coordinates: A Statistical Physics Perspective on “What to Say to a Skeptical Metaphysician”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):635-636.
Alan Weir (2001). More Trouble for Functionalism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 101 (3):267-293.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads53 ( #19,413 of 549,671 )Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,270 of 549,671 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
