• Larry Shapiro, Lessons From Causal Exclusion.
    “Let us now turn to an argument designed to show that mind-body supervenience itself leads to apparent difficulties with mental causation,” says Kim (1998: 39). This is something of a reversal, for Kim (1984: 103) had earlier argued that supervenient causation is a legitimate form of causation. I prefer Kim’s earlier way of thinking. The problem that Kim, in his more recent writings, sees emerging from supervenience is that of causal exclusion. But I think that supervenience by itself does not entail causal exclusion. Belief that it does betrays a metaphysical prejudice that some empirically-informed reflection may help remove. In this paper I take an empirical perspective toward Kim’s arguments for causal exclusion and conclude that, from this perspective, supervenience does not have the dire consequences for causal explanation in the specials sciences that Kim thinks it does.
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar
    19 downloads  |  Added to index:2009-01-27  |  Mark as duplicate |  Delete from index