Reduction, Emergence and Other Recent Options on the Mind/Body Problem: A Philosophical Overview

Journal of Consciousness Studies 8 (9-10):1-34 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Though most contemporary philosophers and scientists accept a physicalist view of mind, the recent surge of interest in the problem of consciousness has put the mind/body problem back into play. The physicalists' lack of success in dispelling the air of residual mystery that surrounds the question of how consciousness might be physically explained has led to a proliferation of options. Some offer alternative formulations of physicalism, but others forgo physicalism in favour of views that are more dualistic or that bring in mentalistic features at the ground- floor level of reality as in pan-proto-psychism. My aim here is to give an overview of the recent philosophic discussion to serve as a map in locating issues and options. I will not offer a comprehensive survey of the debate or mark every important variant to be found in the recent literature. I will mark the principal features of the philosophic landscape that one might use as general orientation points in navigating the terrain. I will focus in particular on three central and interrelated ideas: those of emergence, reduction, and nonreductive physicalism. The third of these, which has emerged as more or less the majority view among current philosophers of mind, combines a pluralist view about the diversity of what needs to be explained by science with an underlying metaphysical commitment to the physical as the ultimate basis of all that is real. The view has been challenged from both left and right, on one side from dualists and on the other from hard core reductive materialists. Despite their differences, those critics agree in finding nonreductive physicalism an unacceptable and perhaps even incoherent position. They agree as well in treating reducibility as the essential criterion for physicality; they differ only about whether the criterion can be met. Reductive physicalists argue that it can, and dualists deny it.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,672

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Mind-body, body-mind: Two distinct problems.Benny Shanon - 2008 - Philosophical Psychology 21 (5):697 – 701.
Scientific reduction and the mind-body problem.Laurence F. Mucciolo - 1974 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy (Suppl.) 185 (2):185-204.
The mind-body problem: An overview.Kirk Ludwig - 2002 - In Stephen P. Stich & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind. Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell. pp. 1-46.
Crane on the Mind-Body Problem and Emergence.Olga Markić - 2004 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 4 (2):199-205.
The mind-body problem.Jerry Fodor - 1981 - Scientific American 244 (1):114-25.
Emergence and the mind-body problem.Michael Silberstein - 1998 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 5 (4):464-82.
Kim's functionalism.Marian David - 1997 - Philosophical Perspectives 11:133-48.
Emergent properties, persons, and the mind-body problem.David H. Jones - 1972 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 10 (4):423-33.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-02-14

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Metaphysically explanatory unification.David Mark Kovacs - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (6):1659-1683.
Metaphysical emergence: Weak and Strong.Jessica Wilson - 2015 - In Tomasz Bigaj & Christian Wüthrich (eds.), Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities. pp. 251-306.
What is Wrong with Self-Grounding?David Mark Kovacs - 2018 - Erkenntnis 83 (6):1157-1180.

View all 40 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references