To explain the phenomena in the world of our experience, to answer the question “why?” rather than only the question “what?”, is one of the foremost objectives of all rational inquiry; and especially, scientific research in its various branches strives to go beyond a mere description of its subject matter by providing an explanation of the phenomena it investigates. While there is rather general agreement about this chief objective of science, there exists considerable difference of opinion as to the function (...) and the essential characteristics of scientific explanation. In the present essay, an attempt will be made to shed some light on these issues by means of an elementary survey of the basic pattern of scientific explanation and a subsequent more rigorous analysis of the concept of law and of the logical structure of explanatory arguments. (shrink)

This paper explores the fundamental ideas that have motivated the idea of emergence and the movement of emergentism. The concept of reduction, which lies at the heart of the emergence idea is explicated, and it is shown how the thesis that emergent properties are irreducible gives a unified account of emergence. The paper goes on to discuss two fundamental unresolved issues for emergentism. The first is that of giving a “positive” characterization of emergence; the second is to give a coherent (...) explanation of how “downward” causation, a central component of emergentism, is able to avoid the problem of overdetermination. (shrink)

An innocent form of emergence—what I call "weak emergence"—is now a commonplace in a thriving interdisciplinary nexus of scientific activity—sometimes called the "sciences of complexity"—that include connectionist modelling, non-linear dynamics (popularly known as "chaos" theory), and artificial life.1 After defining it, illustrating it in two contexts, and reviewing the available evidence, I conclude that the scientific and philosophical prospects for weak emergence are bright.

Most of the issues in the philosophy of mind were formulated long before Charles Darwin produced a scientific theory of biological evolution. That theory had an immediate impact on issues in many areas. But on the philosophy of mind its impact was delayed, and discussions continued for some time as though Darwin had never existed. Even today this is largely true. Yet a theory whose consequences are so far-reaching, and which has radically altered ideas about living things, was bound, sooner (...) or later, to affect discussions of mental phenomena. The pragmatists were the first group of philosophers to work out in detail a philosophy of mind based on evolutionary principles. Moreover, since they were familiar with classical ideas in the field, they were able to assess the kinds of changes in those ideas which evolutionary principles required. My aim in this paper is to review the main features of their enterprise, and to offer some assessment of it. (shrink)

This book endeavors to fill the conceptual gap in theorizing about embodied cognition. The theories of mind and cognition which one could generally call "situated" or "embodied cognition" have gained much attention in the recent decades. However, it has been mostly phenomenology, which has served as a philosophical background for their research program. The main goal of this book is to bring the philosophy of classical American pragmatism firmly into play. Although pragmatism has been arguably the first intellectual current which (...) systematically built its theories of knowledge, mind and valuation upon the model of a bodily interaction between an organism and its environment, as the editors and authors argue, it has not been given sufficient attention in the debate and, consequently, its conceptual resources for enriching the embodied mind project are far from being exhausted. In this book, the authors propose concrete subject-areas in which the philosophy of pragmatism can be of help when dealing with particular problems the philosophy of the embodied mind nowadays faces - a prominent example being the inevitable tension between bodily situatedness and the potential universality of symbolic meaning. (shrink)

Despite its current popularity, “emergence” is a concept with a venerable history and an elusive, ambiguous standing in contemporary evolutionary theory. This paper briefly recounts the history of the term and details some of its current usages. Not only are there radically varying interpretations about how to define emergence but “reductionist” and “holistic” theorists hold very different views about the issue of causation. However, these two seemingly polar positions are not irreconcilable. Reductionism, or detailed analysis of the parts and their (...) interactions, is essential for answering the “how” question in evolution—how does a complex living system work? But holism is equally necessary for answering the “why” question—why did a particular arrangement of parts evolve? In order to answer the “why” question, a broader, multi-leveled paradigm is required. The reductionist approach to explaining emergent complexity has entailed a search for underlying “laws of emergence.” In contrast, the “Synergism Hypothesis” focuses on the “economics”—the functional effects produced by emergent wholes and their selective consequences in evolutionary change. This paper also argues that emergent phenomena represent, in effect, a subset of a larger universe of cooperative, synergistic effects in the natural world. (shrink)

This book is a volume in the Penn Press Anniversary Collection. To mark its 125th anniversary in 2015, the University of Pennsylvania Press rereleased more than 1,100 titles from Penn Press's distinguished backlist from 1899-1999 that had fallen out of print. Spanning an entire century, the Anniversary Collection offers peer-reviewed scholarship in a wide range of subject areas.

David Doat ,Olivier Sartenaer | : Peut-on raisonnablement penser qu’un même phénomène naturel, comme l’esprit par exemple, puisse en même temps être continu et discontinu avec les processus physico-chimiques qui conditionnent son advenue au monde ? Autrement dit, est-il possible de construire une philosophie de la nature qui rejette simultanément la dichotomie métaphysique et la pure identité, c’est-à-dire qui se situe sans contradiction sur la ligne de séparation entre le dualisme et le matérialisme ? En y répondant par l’affirmative, John (...) Dewey et Lloyd Morgan, deux pionniers respectifs du pragmatisme et de l’émergentisme au siècle dernier, ouvrirent la voie d’un nouveau naturalisme antiréductionniste. L’objectif de cet article est, d’une part, de montrer comment ces deux auteurs cherchèrent à relever ce défi en mobilisant le concept d’émergence ; d’autre part de préciser la nature des divergences d’interprétation et d’usage du concept chez Morgan et Dewey. | : Can we reasonably conceive of a given natural phenomenon, say, the mind, that can at the same time be continuous and discontinuous with the physico-chemical processes that give rise to it ? In other words, is it possible to vindicate a philosophy of nature that simultaneously rejects the metaphysical dichotomy and the pure identity, or that consistently stands on the line that separates dualism and materialism ? By answering these questions positively, John Dewey and Lloyd Morgan, respectively pioneers of 20th century pragmatism and emergentism, have opened a path towards a new antireductionist naturalism. The purpose of this paper is, on the one hand, to show how both authors have met this challenge through the use of the concept of emergence and, on the other hand, to explicate the different ways in which both authors have construed and used the concept of emergence. (shrink)

The essay that follows discusses an ordered series of situated environmental “fields” that comprise John Dewey’s “emergent naturalism.” These fields include nature, experience, mind, subconscious, consciousness, and cognitive thought. I propose an order to these fields, and provide an overview of the ways in which fields that are larger in scope stand as the conditions for those that are more limited. I also suggest ways in which cognitive thought further emerges through the process of inquiry. This emergent scheme culminates in (...) a type of inquiry where an agent actively creates conflict in order to enrich experience. (shrink)

This debate, I shall argue, has everything to do with Aristotle. Aristotle raises the charge of epiphenomenalism himself against a theory that seems to have close affinities to his own, and he offers what has the makings of an emergentist response. This leads to controversy within his own school. We find opponents ranged on both sides, starting with his own pupils, several of whom are stout defenders of epiphenomenalism, and culminating in the developed emergentism of later commentators. Aristotle’s theory and (...) the debate that ensued are thus quite relevant to contemporary discussions. But first we need to get clear on terms. (shrink)