Jaegwon Kim has developed an argument that interactionist dualists cannot account for the causal relations between minds and brains. This paper develops a closely related argument that focuses instead on the causal relations between minds and neurons. While there are several promising responses to Kim’s argument, their plausibility relies on a relatively simple understanding of mind–brain relations. Once we shift our focus to neurons, these responses lose their appeal. The problem is that even if mind–brain causal pairing can be explained (...) at no great theoretical cost, the complex interactions non-physical minds would need to have with neurons cannot. (shrink)

While there has been considerable recent criticism of perdurance theory in connection with a Humean understanding of causality, perdurance theory conjoined with causal realism has received relatively little attention. One might, then, form the impression that perdurance theory under the auspices of causal realism is a relatively safe view. I shall argue, however, to the contrary. My general strategy is to show that there is no plausible way of spelling out the perdurance position (of the non-Humean, causal realist sort). I (...) implement this strategy by revealing several general problems concerning the causally-connected temporal parts scheme. I begin with a short account of perdurance theory. There follows a description of two general views of causality and the two subsequent accounts of the perduring object; then, the criticism. (shrink)

What is the relation of an earlier being to a later such that given the earlier there is or will be a later? I call this the question of material continuation. To answer, I offer a review of several philosophers’ thoughts, including those of Zeno, Aristotle, Descartes, Bertrand Russell, Henri Bergson, and Alfred North Whitehead. While there is considerable variety among the ontological views of these philosophers, and indeed some direct opposition of both method and assertion, my review suggests that (...) material continuation may be explained by reference to a principle of continual creation. This principle is reflected in Aristotle's unmoved mover, in Descartes's account of God's activity in persistence, in Bergson's concept of la durée, and in Whitehead's principle of creativity. It disappears from view in objective methodologies first emerging in pre-Socratic thought, made rigorous by the development of science by the modern philosophers such as Descartes, and realized in the scientist philosophy of Russell. I include some consideration of whether the creative principle might be ideal or divine. (shrink)

The paper investigates whether causation is extrinsic in Humean Supervenience in the sense that "being caused by" is an intrinsic relation between token causes and effects. The underlying goal is to test whether causality is extrinsic for Humeans and intrinsic for anti-Humeans in this sense. I argue that causation is typically extrinsic in HS, but it is intrinsic to event pairs that collectively most of the universe's history.

V prispevku poskušamo izgraditi teorijo, ki bi implicitno definirala pojem vzročnosti. Teorija vzročnosti, ki jo poskušamo opredeliti, mora biti analitično resnična in mora zagotoviti analizo pojma vzročnosti tako, da bo resnična v vseh možnih svetovih in ne zgolj v dejanskem svetu. Naš cilj ni teorija, ki bi bila zgolj kontingentno resnična. V tekstu je vzročnost opredeljena kot relacija, ki je opazljiva in ni zvedljiva na druge lastnosti in relacije med posameznimi dogodki. Nato so na podlagi podmene o singularnem povzročanju definirane (...) nekatere osnovne značilnosti vzročnosti, vzročne relacije, vzročne nujnosti in nomične nujnosti. Singularna teorija vzročnosti ne izključuje možnosti, da obstajajo zakoni narave in da so posamezne vzročne relacije instance zakonov. Vzročna pojasnitev ni reducirana na nomično pojasnitev, ker samo dejstvo, da obstaja vzročna relacija, še ni garancija za obstoj zakona narave. (shrink)