Defending Non‐Epiphenomenal Event Dualism<sup>1</sup>

Garrett, Brian

doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2000.tb00907.x

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been numerous replies to Kim's arguments but here I shall note just a few points most closely related to my discussion [Dardis, ; Loewer, ]. Garrett 1998; 2000 argued that Kim's two arguments failed on a constitution theory of events. If mental events are constituted by physical events, then Kim's worry about redundancy can be addressed.…”

Section: Section Three: Constitution Redundancy and Causal Closurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For consider a world in which the physical cause does not occur and which in other respects is as much like our world as possible. The over‐determination approach says that in such a world, the mental cause causes a physical event – namely that the principle of causal closure of the physical domain no longer holds.” [Kim, : 45]There have been numerous replies to Kim's arguments [Bennett, ; Block, ; Garrett, , ,; Marcus, ; Marras, ; Yablo, ] but I shall conduct the discussion around constitution theories of objects and property‐instances. Two arguments are found in this passage.…”

Section: Section Two: Nonreductive Materialism and The Proliferation mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The over-determination approach says that in such a world, the mental cause causes a physical event -namely that the principle of causal closure of the physical domain no longer holds." [Kim, 1998: 45] There have been numerous replies to Kim's arguments [Bennett, 2003;Block, 2003;Garrett, 1998Garrett, , 2000Marcus, 2001;Marras, 2000;Yablo, 1992] but I shall conduct the discussion around constitution theories of objects and property-instances. Two argu-5 Trenton Merricks [2003: 113] writes ".…”

Section: Section Two: Nonreductive Materialism and The Proliferation mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second worry concerned causal closure. Several philosophers replied to Kim that causal closure is not violated by holding that the constituted object also causes the physical effect in question [Garrett, ; Crisp and Warfield, ; Baker, ] Closure requires that in all nomologically possible worlds physical events, objects or property‐instances, have a physical cause. Over determination adds causes.…”

Section: Section Three: Constitution Redundancy and Causal Closurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Constitution, Over Determination and Causal Power

Garrett¹

2013

Ratio

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kim's exclusion argument threatens to show that irreducible constituted objects are epiphenomenal. Kim's arguments are examined and found to be unconvincing; that a constituted cause requires its constituent to be a cause is not an adequate reason to reject the causation of the constituted object (event or property‐instance). However, I introduce and argue for, the Causal Power Uniqueness Condition (CPUC). I argue that CPUC and the causal closure of the physical, implies that constituted objects or property‐instances are not novel causal powers.

show abstract

Section: Section Three: Constitution Redundancy and Causal Closurementioning

confidence: 99%