Skip to main content

Intentional Causation

 


Mario de Caro and Matteo Grasso together wrote "Three Views of Downward Causation" for publication 

in the 2017 anthology, 

"Philosophical and scientific perspectives on downward causation." Nothing much to do with the 

Koestler book, but I like that cover image. 

    The issue of "downward causation" is one that arises in the philosophy 

of mind, among those who believe that mind and body, even mind and brain,

are different facts in the world, neither reducible to the other.

The issue of downward causation is: how if at all can mental events 

cause physical events? How does my phenomenal desire that my arm move 

lead to my arm moving? 

    De Caro and Grasso contend that naturalism is consistent with the reality 

of downward causation. We do not have to postulate any non-natural

facts, souls, trans-empirical egos, a ghost in the machine, etc., in order to acknowledge that the 

desire is a non-physical fact and that it CAUSES the arm movement.

    They offer three possible explanations of how: anomalous monism, 

ontological emergentism, and intentional causation. My readers will by

now remember that I have set out my own emergentist views here, at least

in broad outline. But De Caro and Grasso think intentional causation

is the best of the three candidates. What they mean by this door number

three is the idea that explanation and causation are mutually exclusive

and irreducible goals, and that intention can be part of the cause-and-effect 

chain even if we learn how to omit it from any explanation.

    It sounds like word-shuffling to me. No real help at all. But consider 

this simply a bibliographic note.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more