more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 3532

[filed under theme 7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 5. Supervenience / c. Significance of supervenience ]

Full Idea

Searle's defence of causally efficacious supervenient mind won't work, because, unlike the mind, the solidity of a piston is not a distinct and separate phenomenon from its microstructure.

Gist of Idea

Solidity in a piston is integral to its structure, not supervenient

Source

comment on John Searle (The Rediscovery of the Mind [1992], Ch. 5.V) by Keith T. Maslin - Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind 7.6

Book Ref

Maslin,Keith: 'An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind' [Polity 2001], p.204


A Reaction

Searle struggles to find analogies for his position - and that, in my view, is highly significant in the philosophy of mind. If there is nothing else like your proposed theory, it is probably just human vainglory.


The 23 ideas with the same theme [what should be inferred from a supervenience]:

Two things being joined together doesn't prove they are the same [Descartes]
General facts supervene on particular facts, but cannot be inferred from them [Russell, by Bennett,K]
Life has a new supervenient relation, which alters its underlying physical events [Morgan,L]
The goodness of a picture supervenes on the picture; duplicates must be equally good [Hare]
Solidity in a piston is integral to its structure, not supervenient [Maslin on Searle]
Is supervenience just causality? [Searle, by Maslin]
Supervenience suggest dependence without reduction (e.g. beauty) [Kim]
Supervenience is not a dependence relation, on the lines of causal, mereological or semantic dependence [Kim]
Supervenience is just a 'surface' relation of pattern covariation, which still needs deeper explanation [Kim]
Pure supervenience explains nothing, and is a sign of something fundamental we don't know [Nagel]
A supervenience thesis is a denial of independent variation [Lewis]
Don't just observe supervenience - explain it! [Horgan,T]
Constitution (as in a statue constituted by its marble) is supervenience without identity [Crane]
Reduction requires logical supervenience [Chalmers]
Shadows are supervenient on their objects, but not reducible [Maslin]
If some facts 'logically supervene' on some others, they just redescribe them, adding nothing [Lynch/Glasgow]
If naturalism refers to supervenience, that leaves necessary entities untouched [Bird]
Supervenience offers little explanation for things which necessarily go together [Hofweber]
Supervenience is simply modally robust property co-variance [Hendry]
Necessities supervene on everything, but don't depend on everything [Liggins]
Aesthetics, morality and mind supervene on the physical? Modal on non-modal? General on particular? [Bennett,K]
Some entailments do not involve supervenience, as when brotherhood entails siblinghood [Bennett,K]
Reduction requires supervenience, but does supervenience suffice for reduction? [Bennett,K]