Follow infophilosopher:
|
|
|
|
Philosophers
Mortimer Adler Rogers Albritton Alexander of Aphrodisias Samuel Alexander William Alston Anaximander G.E.M.Anscombe Anselm Louise Antony Thomas Aquinas Aristotle David Armstrong Harald Atmanspacher Robert Audi Augustine J.L.Austin A.J.Ayer Alexander Bain Mark Balaguer Jeffrey Barrett William Barrett William Belsham Henri Bergson George Berkeley Isaiah Berlin Richard J. Bernstein Bernard Berofsky Robert Bishop Max Black Susanne Bobzien Emil du Bois-Reymond Hilary Bok Laurence BonJour George Boole Émile Boutroux Daniel Boyd F.H.Bradley C.D.Broad Michael Burke Lawrence Cahoone C.A.Campbell Joseph Keim Campbell Rudolf Carnap Carneades Nancy Cartwright Gregg Caruso Ernst Cassirer David Chalmers Roderick Chisholm Chrysippus Cicero Tom Clark Randolph Clarke Samuel Clarke Anthony Collins Antonella Corradini Diodorus Cronus Jonathan Dancy Donald Davidson Mario De Caro Democritus Daniel Dennett Jacques Derrida René Descartes Richard Double Fred Dretske John Dupré John Earman Laura Waddell Ekstrom Epictetus Epicurus Austin Farrer Herbert Feigl Arthur Fine John Martin Fischer Frederic Fitch Owen Flanagan Luciano Floridi Philippa Foot Alfred Fouilleé Harry Frankfurt Richard L. Franklin Bas van Fraassen Michael Frede Gottlob Frege Peter Geach Edmund Gettier Carl Ginet Alvin Goldman Gorgias Nicholas St. John Green H.Paul Grice Ian Hacking Ishtiyaque Haji Stuart Hampshire W.F.R.Hardie Sam Harris William Hasker R.M.Hare Georg W.F. Hegel Martin Heidegger Heraclitus R.E.Hobart Thomas Hobbes David Hodgson Shadsworth Hodgson Baron d'Holbach Ted Honderich Pamela Huby David Hume Ferenc Huoranszki Frank Jackson William James Lord Kames Robert Kane Immanuel Kant Tomis Kapitan Walter Kaufmann Jaegwon Kim William King Hilary Kornblith Christine Korsgaard Saul Kripke Thomas Kuhn Andrea Lavazza Christoph Lehner Keith Lehrer Gottfried Leibniz Jules Lequyer Leucippus Michael Levin Joseph Levine George Henry Lewes C.I.Lewis David Lewis Peter Lipton C. Lloyd Morgan John Locke Michael Lockwood Arthur O. Lovejoy E. Jonathan Lowe John R. Lucas Lucretius Alasdair MacIntyre Ruth Barcan Marcus Tim Maudlin James Martineau Nicholas Maxwell Storrs McCall Hugh McCann Colin McGinn Michael McKenna Brian McLaughlin John McTaggart Paul E. Meehl Uwe Meixner Alfred Mele Trenton Merricks John Stuart Mill Dickinson Miller G.E.Moore Thomas Nagel Otto Neurath Friedrich Nietzsche John Norton P.H.Nowell-Smith Robert Nozick William of Ockham Timothy O'Connor Parmenides David F. Pears Charles Sanders Peirce Derk Pereboom Steven Pinker U.T.Place Plato Karl Popper Porphyry Huw Price H.A.Prichard Protagoras Hilary Putnam Willard van Orman Quine Frank Ramsey Ayn Rand Michael Rea Thomas Reid Charles Renouvier Nicholas Rescher C.W.Rietdijk Richard Rorty Josiah Royce Bertrand Russell Paul Russell Gilbert Ryle Jean-Paul Sartre Kenneth Sayre T.M.Scanlon Moritz Schlick John Duns Scotus Arthur Schopenhauer John Searle Wilfrid Sellars David Shiang Alan Sidelle Ted Sider Henry Sidgwick Walter Sinnott-Armstrong Peter Slezak J.J.C.Smart Saul Smilansky Michael Smith Baruch Spinoza L. Susan Stebbing Isabelle Stengers George F. Stout Galen Strawson Peter Strawson Eleonore Stump Francisco Suárez Richard Taylor Kevin Timpe Mark Twain Peter Unger Peter van Inwagen Manuel Vargas John Venn Kadri Vihvelin Voltaire G.H. von Wright David Foster Wallace R. Jay Wallace W.G.Ward Ted Warfield Roy Weatherford C.F. von Weizsäcker William Whewell Alfred North Whitehead David Widerker David Wiggins Bernard Williams Timothy Williamson Ludwig Wittgenstein Susan Wolf Scientists David Albert Michael Arbib Walter Baade Bernard Baars Jeffrey Bada Leslie Ballentine Marcello Barbieri Gregory Bateson Horace Barlow John S. Bell Mara Beller Charles Bennett Ludwig von Bertalanffy Susan Blackmore Margaret Boden David Bohm Niels Bohr Ludwig Boltzmann Emile Borel Max Born Satyendra Nath Bose Walther Bothe Jean Bricmont Hans Briegel Leon Brillouin Stephen Brush Henry Thomas Buckle S. H. Burbury Melvin Calvin Donald Campbell Sadi Carnot Anthony Cashmore Eric Chaisson Gregory Chaitin Jean-Pierre Changeux Rudolf Clausius Arthur Holly Compton John Conway Jerry Coyne John Cramer Francis Crick E. P. Culverwell Antonio Damasio Olivier Darrigol Charles Darwin Richard Dawkins Terrence Deacon Lüder Deecke Richard Dedekind Louis de Broglie Stanislas Dehaene Max Delbrück Abraham de Moivre Bernard d'Espagnat Paul Dirac Hans Driesch John Eccles Arthur Stanley Eddington Gerald Edelman Paul Ehrenfest Manfred Eigen Albert Einstein George F. R. Ellis Hugh Everett, III Franz Exner Richard Feynman R. A. Fisher David Foster Joseph Fourier Philipp Frank Steven Frautschi Edward Fredkin Benjamin Gal-Or Howard Gardner Lila Gatlin Michael Gazzaniga Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen GianCarlo Ghirardi J. Willard Gibbs James J. Gibson Nicolas Gisin Paul Glimcher Thomas Gold A. O. Gomes Brian Goodwin Joshua Greene Dirk ter Haar Jacques Hadamard Mark Hadley Patrick Haggard J. B. S. Haldane Stuart Hameroff Augustin Hamon Sam Harris Ralph Hartley Hyman Hartman Jeff Hawkins John-Dylan Haynes Donald Hebb Martin Heisenberg Werner Heisenberg John Herschel Basil Hiley Art Hobson Jesper Hoffmeyer Don Howard John H. Jackson William Stanley Jevons Roman Jakobson E. T. Jaynes Pascual Jordan Eric Kandel Ruth E. Kastner Stuart Kauffman Martin J. Klein William R. Klemm Christof Koch Simon Kochen Hans Kornhuber Stephen Kosslyn Daniel Koshland Ladislav Kovàč Leopold Kronecker Rolf Landauer Alfred Landé Pierre-Simon Laplace Karl Lashley David Layzer Joseph LeDoux Gerald Lettvin Gilbert Lewis Benjamin Libet David Lindley Seth Lloyd Werner Loewenstein Hendrik Lorentz Josef Loschmidt Alfred Lotka Ernst Mach Donald MacKay Henry Margenau Owen Maroney David Marr Humberto Maturana James Clerk Maxwell Ernst Mayr John McCarthy Warren McCulloch N. David Mermin George Miller Stanley Miller Ulrich Mohrhoff Jacques Monod Vernon Mountcastle Emmy Noether Donald Norman Alexander Oparin Abraham Pais Howard Pattee Wolfgang Pauli Massimo Pauri Wilder Penfield Roger Penrose Steven Pinker Colin Pittendrigh Walter Pitts Max Planck Susan Pockett Henri Poincaré Daniel Pollen Ilya Prigogine Hans Primas Zenon Pylyshyn Henry Quastler Adolphe Quételet Pasco Rakic Nicolas Rashevsky Lord Rayleigh Frederick Reif Jürgen Renn Giacomo Rizzolati A.A. Roback Emil Roduner Juan Roederer Jerome Rothstein David Ruelle David Rumelhart Robert Sapolsky Tilman Sauer Ferdinand de Saussure Jürgen Schmidhuber Erwin Schrödinger Aaron Schurger Sebastian Seung Thomas Sebeok Franco Selleri Claude Shannon Charles Sherrington Abner Shimony Herbert Simon Dean Keith Simonton Edmund Sinnott B. F. Skinner Lee Smolin Ray Solomonoff Roger Sperry John Stachel Henry Stapp Tom Stonier Antoine Suarez Leo Szilard Max Tegmark Teilhard de Chardin Libb Thims William Thomson (Kelvin) Richard Tolman Giulio Tononi Peter Tse Alan Turing C. S. Unnikrishnan Francisco Varela Vlatko Vedral Vladimir Vernadsky Mikhail Volkenstein Heinz von Foerster Richard von Mises John von Neumann Jakob von Uexküll C. H. Waddington John B. Watson Daniel Wegner Steven Weinberg Paul A. Weiss Herman Weyl John Wheeler Jeffrey Wicken Wilhelm Wien Norbert Wiener Eugene Wigner E. O. Wilson Günther Witzany Stephen Wolfram H. Dieter Zeh Semir Zeki Ernst Zermelo Wojciech Zurek Konrad Zuse Fritz Zwicky Presentations Biosemiotics Free Will Mental Causation James Symposium |
Uwe Meixner
Uwe Meixner is a philosopher of logic with theological interests who makes the case for a dualistic conception of mental causation. He interprets indeterministic events as opening a door to nonphysical causation by denying causal closure, the idea that everything in the world is determined by physical causes:
Meixner's thinking seems consistent with two-stage models of free will, which generate alternative possibilities for action, which are then left to the agent (the self) to deliberate, evaluate, and select from.
Meixner sees a connection with the indeterministic element that must be a part of biological evolution.
what about the nonphysical causation of physical events without equivalent physical causation, say, without any accompanying physical causation at all? Would not the occurrence of nonphysical causation of physical events without accompanying physical causation get into conflict with physics? It would not, not even under the metaphysical supposition that the physical world is a closed system: because an instance of nonphysical causation of a physical event without accompanying physical causation would leave the sum total of energy and momentum unchanged. It would merely involve a redistribution of energy and momentum. Redistributions of energy and momentum are, of course, happening constantly, and normally, it seems, one need not invoke nonphysical causation for having them come about. But, as most modern physicists hold, at least some of these redistributions are not determined by the energy/momentum distributions of the past.3 If this is true, then the physical past leaves a lacuna of determination that need not be left entirely to chance, but that can be, at least partly, filled by additional determination coming purely from a nonphysical source. In an indeterministic physical world, there is room for the nonphysical — specifically, the nonphysical mental — causation of physical events without accompanying physical causation.Meixner's arguments are consistent with an immaterial source of downward causal control by the mental, such as that proposed in our model of information as an emergent dualistic substance. Meixner says that what he calls "Purely nonphysical" mental causation of the physical would originate in the mental subject, in the nonphysical individual, wholly present at each moment of its existence, which is the centre of consciousness: in the nonphysical substantial self. Since purely nonphysical mental causation of the physical presupposes physical indeterminism and originates in a substantial nonphysical mental agent, I will also call this kind of causation free nonphysical agency.Meixner sees the external physical world as a source of macroscopic indetermination: The difficult question is how the nonphysical mental subject manages to do all this. If there is an answer, it must be provided by the brain.Meixner argues that not only microscopic (subatomic) indetermination is present in the body (brain), but also macroscopic indetermination. This is the idea of amplification of uncertainty. From the indetermination the brain notices, it selects the indetermination worth reporting according to relevancy (for the survival, or at least the wellbeing, of the organism) and restrictability (since the biological point of detecting and reporting indetermination is to subsequently restrict that indetermination advantageously)... Finally, the indetermination selected by the brain as worth reporting is classified according to relative importance, so that the self, in consciousness, is ultimately presented with a relatively clear spectrum of weighted alternatives open to it. Then the decision what to do is up to the self. If determinism ruled in the physical macro-world, then there would be nothing in that world that needed controlling, and hence nothing would need to be monitored or governed by any organ. For under determinism, everything happens automatically, with absolute precision and with inexorable necessity. Thus, unless there is indetermination of considerable extent in the physical macro-world, the emergence of brains is absolutely pointless from the evolutionary point of view. blockquote> Under macroscopic physical determinism, the structural complexity of every apparatus, natural or artificial, is pointless that makes in advance provision for realizing at a time t one or another of several incompatible alternatives regarding the physical macro-world. where each of these alternatives is possible at time t. Why provide for the realization of one or another among several such alternatives — even if only in such a manner that the realization merely amounts to a law-determined reaction to a given physical condition, as in a multi-possibility reactor — if, under macroscopic physical determinism, it is true of only one thing at any moment in time that it can happen in the physical macro-world (namely, the one that does in fact happen)? When evolution ran a course that led, let’s suppose, merely by (microscopic) accidental mutation and subsequent natural selection to the development of macroscopic devices that are geared for implementing choices (made — by the devices themselves or by something else — between at least two incompatible alternatives that are each possible at the time in question), had evolution then forgotten that macroscopic physical determinism is true? Was it ignoring it? I am of course not saying that the development of the above mentioned devices for implementing choices is logically incompatible with macroscopic physical determinism; for this determinism could, in principle, be of such a kind that the emergence of, say, multi-possibility reactors was itself determined. This would be an absurd — that is, an unnecessarily expensive — course for nature to take, and therefore a rather unlikely course (even for a complete mechanist regarding nature it remains true that nature normally follows the course which is themost economical), but it is not a logically impossible one. Therefore, in asserting that if determinism ruled in the physical macro-world brains would never have developed, I am relying on an implicit inference to the best explanation... I prefer to regard the impressive emergence of brains in the course of evolution as an indication of the great extent to which the terrestrial physical macro-world is undetermined (prior to additional determination). Given this massive macro-indetermination, the unpredictability with which brains are confronted in their monitoring and governing activity must indeed more often than not betoken indetermination. Two Models of Action-Determination: Chance-Generator and Decision-Maker [perhaps Two-stage Models?] Once it is accepted that the brain is often right in translating unpredictability as indetermination, and as indetermination about which something can be done (via the brain), the question arises in what manner it is determined what will be done; that is, the question arises in what manner it is determined how the detected indetermination will be restricted. There are two salient models for this. The first model — where the brain is a DOMINDAR in its own right — can do without consciousness; it simply consists in this: the brain contains a physical chance generator (that is, a generator of genuine physical chance events: physical events without sufficient cause), and determining which alternative to realize fromthe several realizable alternatives the brain has detected is left to cerebral gambling (and subsequent mechanical cerebral processes), for which procedure consciousness is not essential. The second model — where the brain is a DOMINDAR instrumentally for something else — cannot do without consciousness; for, according to it, consciousness is precisely the nonphysical medium in which the several realizable alternatives the brain has detected are presented by the brain to the nonphysical self (under normal conditions, quite faithfully), who then, in the light of consciousness, makes an at least rudimentarily rational decision regarding which alternative to realize. This decision may, but need not necessarily, be preceded by deliberation, and under normal conditions it is quite faithfully put into effect by the brain. It far too often turns out to be the correct decision for it to be with any likelihood the result of a mere chance process. The instigation by the self of the brain to go into action in a certain manner is indeed an occurrence of nonphysical causation of the physical without accompanying physical causation. But this occurrence of nonphysical causation of the physical cannot interfere with physical causation and the laws of physics, because it is purely and simply the beginning of the realization of one among several physical possibilities — involving brain, rest of the body, and outer environment—that the laws of physics, the entire physical past and therefore the sum total of physical causation could not by themselves exclude from happening.
The Two Sides of Being
During his 2001/2002 academic year spent at Notre Dame (where one "can use the word 'soul' ... and they don't snicker"), Meixner began work on his monumental defense of dualism The Two Sides of Being: A Reassessment of Psycho-Physical Dualism. Physicalism is the modern term for materialism, he says, and he surveys the materialist philosophers who attack "dualist" concepts like mind, self, soul, spirit, consciousness, experience, as so many "illusions."
His chief targets are Daniel Dennett, John Searle, David Chalmers (though Searle and Chalmers oppose Dennett), the Churchlands, Colin McGinn, Richard Swinburne, and Derek Parfit.
|
