Philosophers Index Abstract
- It is generally accepted that the most serious threat to the possibility of mental causation1 is posed by the causal self-sufficiency of physical causal processes. I argue, however, that this feature of the world, which I articulate in principle I call Completeness, in fact poses no genuine threat to mental causation2.
- Some find Completeness threatening to mental causation3 because they confuse it with a stronger principle, which I call Closure. Others do not simply conflate Completeness and Closure, but hold that Completeness, together with certain plausible assumptions, entails Closure. I refute the most fully worked-out version of such an argument.
- Finally, some find Completeness all by itself threatening to mental causation4. I argue that one will only find Completeness threatening if one operates with a philosophically distorted conception of mental causation5. I thereby defend what I call naïve realism about mental causation6.
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2018
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)