The Article Epiphenomenal And Supervenient Causation

Have you ever wondered about the world beyond its original state? How we know that electricity produces a light bulb to light up or causes the sort of energy necessary to produce heat? But in the first place, what is electricity? Nor have we seen it and not we encountered it; however, we know what it can do, hence its effects. To help us better understand the notion of cause and effect, David Hume, an empiricist and skepticist philosopher, proposed the that there is no such thing as causation. In his theory, he explained the deliberate relationship between the cause and effect, and how the two factors are not interrelated. Think of it this way: sometimes we end up failing to light a match even though it was struck. The previous day, it lit up, but today it did not. Why? Hume’s theory regarding causation helps us comprehend matters of cause and effect, and how we encounter the effects in our daily lives, without the cause being necessary. According to Hume, since we never experience the cause of something, we cannot use inductive reasoning to conclude that one event causes another. In other words, causal necessity (the cause and effect being related in some way or another) seems to be subjective, as if it solely exists in our minds and not in the object itself.

In Kim’s 1992 publication he argued that is mental properties are multiply realized then they essentially cannot be casual properties and therefore, they cannot be scientific. From this notion, he cannot allow there to be psychological laws nor can there be any kind of psychological theory either. Kim think that we can anticipate that there are many distinct and local psych theories. There will be several psychologies, one for human, one for aliens, one for elephants and so on. He concludes that it is impossible to have one psychological theory that reins over all species. Kim substantiates that only laws of physics can be universally applied to everything. He also states that economics, biology, chemistry and sociology will fall prey to the same faults as psychology does. It seems that to respond to Kim we must consider a multitude of scientific and philosophical issues.

There is issues with causation though and is questioned whether it is in need of reform.

On the eve of November 15, 1982, defendant Thomas Kusmider was informed by his girlfriend, that a gentleman named Arthur Villella, had assaulted her sexually. Mr. Kusmider confronted Mr. Villella at his home which led Kusmider to shoot Mr. Villella in the throat. Paramedics arrived on scene and were able to intubate Mr. Villella. However, while en route to the hospital Mr. Villella pulled the tube out of his throat. The victim later died at the hospital.

The final stage of the research was like the last two although concentrating on another aspect. The purpose of the stage was to focus on the mechanisms that are used in illusory causation. The conclusion is that the causation relies on the perception of one rather than the analysis of the footage. It was noted that the point of view of the participant will impact the way they register the information and it will influence their judgment on the case. For example, the subjects may watch the video over and over but the brain will only focus on the movements instead of what is said. When it comes to the verdict, it will be based on the movements because the brain cannot recall the audio portion (Lassiter, 2001).

In this approach we see the theories of psychology that see the human mind function based upon the interaction of forces and drives within the mind, normally this means unconscious thoughts, but it also includes looking at the different structures of the personality.

On the other hand, Anscombe disagrees with Hume, and believes that we can, and do observe causation. Anscombe uses examples of crushing, chewing, pushing, and such to illustrate that we do perceive causation. For example, if person A holds a sheet of paper in their hand, and then begins to crush the sheet of paper, and then later we see the sheet of paper crumbled; Anscombe argues that this is enough evidence to show that we do perceive causation, because we can see the causing of the sheet of paper to crumble. Another example is of person A cutting a sheet of paper; Anscombe would argue that it is evident that we observe the causing of the sheet of paper be divided. In addition, Ansombe add that we can perceive causation by tracing an effect to its cause. For example, of the cutting of a sheet of paper by person A, one can traced the effect (sheet of paper cut in half) to its cause (person A cutting the sheet of paper). Therefore, Anscombe claims that we do perceive causation. Anscombe believes that this evidence is sufficient to prove that we not only perceive “contiguity” and “succession” of events, but the cause of events.

In the critique of pure reason, Kant states, “All alternations occur in accordance with the law of the connection of cause and effect.”1 This statement is interpreted in two different ways: weak readings and strong readings. The weak readings basically suggest that Kant's statement only refer to “All events have a cause”; however, the strong readings suggest that “the Second Analogy is committed not just to causes, but to causal laws as well.”2 To understand the difference between the readings, it is helpful to notice Kant's distinction between empirical laws of nature and universal transcendental principles. Empirical laws have an empirical element that universal transcendental principles cannot imply. On the other hand, empirical experiences require necessity to become a law, accordingly, “the transcendental laws “ground” the empirical laws by supplying them with their necessity.”3In this paper, according to this distinction, I first, argue that the second analogy supports the weak reading, second, show how in Prolegomena he uses the concept of causation in a way that is compatible to the strong reading, and third, investigate whether this incongruity is solvable.

There is, as Searle rightly points out however, a ragged hole in Kim’s conclusion. Kim asserts, as if to appease us, that mental states are both epiphenomenal and causal. By describing mental states as “superveniently causal,” i.e. appearing to be causal based on the true causality of their microproperties, he has satisfied Hume’s requirements for causation, i.e. that causation itself is

The opinion that God solely causes everything is known as occasionalism. Occasionalism is a version of Cartesian metaphysics, that thrived in the last half of the 17th century, based on the belief that all communication between mind and body is arbitrated by God. Occasionalism suggests that mind and body do not interact directly, however, the impression of direct communication is sustained by God, who drives the body on the mind’s urging and who places suggestions in the mind when the body meets other material provocations (Swinburne,

In opposition to Newton; the Causation was a new way of understanding sense experience because of its complex outlooks on consciousness. ADD THESIS POINT ON The foundation of David Hume’s Causation is the construction of Human Nature, by using “elements

The philosophical questioning of free will is really a matter of the volition of man. That is, free will is a central dogma that many subscribe to that empowers them to be accountable for their own lives and that provides meaning to something that is largely unknown. Free will proves to be a profound and highly debated topic in the philosophical realm. Whether free will truly exists or not is largely implicating in how one perceives the world and, even, other more life-defining topics. Though there is great debate on free will, the following argues that the philosophical belief of compatibilism rationalizes the most logically sound stance upon free will.

Ryle argues that, according to the traditional theory of the mind, mental acts are regarded as causing and

Before we look at the Regularity View of Causation it is important to look at Humes Copy Principle as his view on causation is linked to this. Hume states that “all our ideas are nothing but copies of our impressions or in other words it is impossible for us to think of anything which we have not antecedently felt, either by our external or

Act and potency and their distinction are an important and fundamental theory in philosophy. It helps approach questions in metaphysics concerning substance, essence, and causation. In this essay, I will be using this theory of act and potency to show how the four causes and the theory relate to each other. Thus, the four causes: formal cause, material cause, efficient cause, and final cause are related to each other and can be explained through the theory and concepts of act and potency.