Two Solutions to the Exclusion Problem: One Falls, and the Other Stands

• Main Authors: CHAN, HEI-MAN, 陳希敏
• Other Authors: LINTON WANG
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2017
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/sxwcey

碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 哲學系研究所 === 105 === This thesis discusses two different formulations of the exclusion problem and possible solutions to the exclusion problem. Zhong (2014) formulates a sophisticated version of the exclusion problem and tries to solve the problem by pointing out the incompatibility between the premise “Causal realization principle” and the dual conditionals of interventionism. In Chapter 1, Zhong’s propsoal will be challenged since his solution will be argued to be relied on his misunderstanding of interventionist approach and misapplication of the multiple realizability of mental. The problems which may arise from taking causation as type causation in Zhong’s argument will also be discussed. By comparing the traditional version of exclusion problem (Kim’s one) and Zhong’s one, Chapter 2 finds that Zhong neglects some crucial factors, e.g. the prior explanatory role of supervenience relation and the role of downward causation principle in mental-to-mental causation, in the traditional versions. So Zhong’s solution to the exclusion problem fails to apply to the traditional version. A new solution to the exclusion problem will be proposed in Chapter 3. Possible challenges to the new solution will be discussed and replied. The advantage of the new solution is that it can fit our intuition without violate the causal closure principle.