Mechanisms, Capacities, and Nomological Machines: Integrating Cartwright’s Account of Nomological Machines and Machamer, Darden and Craver’s Account of Mechanisms

Chen, Ruey-Lin

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45532-7_8

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…in the Machamer et al account the link between entities and activitiessee Pemberton 2011. Cartwright (recently with Pemberton) by embracing powers does provide a basis for such a link within nomological machines, which may be understood as a version of mechanisms (Cartwright & Pemberton 2012, Pemberton & Cartwright 2014, Chen 2017).…”

Section: Characterising Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individuating Processes

Pembérton¹

2018

Oxford Scholarship Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What are processes? How should we individuate them? The first part of this chapter sets aside metaphysics to distil a characterization of processes from a consideration of their treatment in science: processes involve parts acting together (at each stage) to bring about the next stage—they are commonly characterized by a rich range of criteria including the nature and arrangement of parts at each stage, how the process exhibits change and self-maintains across stages, and perhaps the role of the process within its larger context. The chapter identifies the tension between this rich view of processes and parsimonious accounts of individuals common in metaphysics (e.g., an individual may be wholly characterized by a list of admissible properties, individuals cannot have other individuals as parts). (Processes can have processes as parts.) The author suggests these tensions may underlie many of the problems of individuation that are the topic of this volume.

show abstract

Section: Characterising Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individuating Processes

Pembérton¹

2018

Oxford Scholarship Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Theories of Mechanism

Krickel

2018

Studies in Brain and Mind

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On Characterizing Metaphysical Naturalism

Chan¹

2021

Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Mind Volume 1

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The disciplinary characterization (DC) is the most popular approach to defining metaphysical naturalism and physicalism. It defines metaphysical naturalism with reference to scientific theories and defines physicalism with reference to physical theories, and suggests that every entity that exists is a posited entity of these theories. DC has been criticized for its inability to solve Hempel’s dilemma and a list of problems alike. In this chapter, I propose a novel version of DC that can be called a historical paths approach. The idea is (roughly) that metaphysical naturalism can be defined with reference to the historical ideas that current scientific ideas descend from. I argue that it is not rendered implausible by the above problems, and hence that DC is more defensible and attractive than it may first appear. I then argue that the approach also provides a useful framework for the naturalization of the philosophy of mind and phenomenology.

show abstract

Mechanisms, Capacities, and Nomological Machines: Integrating Cartwright’s Account of Nomological Machines and Machamer, Darden and Craver’s Account of Mechanisms

Cited by 3 publications

References 21 publications

Individuating Processes

Individuating Processes

Theories of Mechanism

On Characterizing Metaphysical Naturalism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About