Sven Walter

The realization relation that allegedly holds between mental and physical properties plays a crucial role for so-called non-reductive physicalism because it is supposed to secure both the ontological autonomy of mental properties and, despite their irreducibility, their ability to make a causal difference to the course of the causally closed physical world. For a long time however, the nature of realization has largely been ignored in the philosophy of mind until a couple of years ago authors like Carl Gillett, Derk Pereboom, or Sydney Shoemaker proposed accounts according to which realization is understood against the background of the so-called 'causal theory of properties'. At least partially, the hope was to solve the problem of mental causation, in particular the kind of causal exclusion reasoning made famous by Jaegwon Kim, in a way acceptable to nonreductive physicalists. The paper asks whether a proper explication of the realization relation can indeed help explain how physically realized mental properties can be causally efficacious in the causally closed physical world and argues for a negative answer: it is important for the non-reductive physicalist to understand what exactly the realization relation amounts to, but it does not solve the problem of mental causation

Der Epiphänomenalismus ist eine Position in der Philosophie des Geistes, wonach mentale Ereignisse zwar vollständige physikalische Ursachen haben, selbst aber keine Ursachen oder Teilursachen anderer Ereignisse sind. Entgegen einer weit verbreiteten Meinung tritt die vorliegende Arbeit dafür ein, dass der Epiphänomenalismus keineswegs vollkommen absurd und unhaltbar ist. Es wird zunächst dafür argumentiert, dass er einige der gegen ihn üblicherweise erhobenen Einwände zwar sehr leicht entkräften kann, an anderen jedoch aus Gründen, die bislang kaum beachtet wurden, zu scheitern droht. Anschließend wird eine Strategie diskutiert, mittels derer sich der Epiphänomenalismus unter bestimmten Bedingungen gegen einen Großteil der Einwände immunisieren kann; zugleich werden jedoch aber auch einige interne Schwierigkeiten angesprochen, die in diesem Zusammenhang zu Tage treten und den Epiphänomenalismus vor bislang in ihrer Tragweite nicht hinreichend erfasste Probleme stellen. Die Arbeit schließt mit einigen Spekulationen zu einer alternativen Variante des Epiphänomenalismus, die einen Teil dieser Probleme vermeiden kann

This paper provides an overview over the debate about so-called “situated approaches to cognition” that depart from the intracranialism associated with traditional cognitivism insofar as they stress the importance of body, world, and interaction for cognitive processing. It sketches the outlines of an overarching framework that reveals the differences, commonalities, and interdependencies between the various claims and positions of second-generation cognitive science, and identifies a number of apparently unresolved conceptual and ontological issues

Daniel Weiskopf has recently raised an apparently powerful objection against the so-called “extended mind thesis” with regard to beliefs. His argument is that since alleged cases of “extended beliefs” lack a characteristic feature of beliefs properly so called (newly acquired beliefs are usually integrated with already existing beliefs rapidly, automatically and unconsciously), they do not count as genuine beliefs properly so called. We defend the extended mind thesis by arguing that Weiskopf is wrong. First, we suggest an alternative account of informational integration that is compatible with externally stored beliefs’ being beliefs properly so called, emphasizes the crucial role action plays for cognition, and stresses the embodied and situationally embedded nature of human cognizers. Second, we argue that even if informational integration were usually rapid, automatic, and unconscious, this would not be an essential feature of beliefs. Third, we argue that even if rapid, automatic, and unconscious informational integration were characteristic of our commonsense conception of beliefs, externally stored “beliefs” would still be sufficiently similar to beliefs properly so called for them to be grouped together for all practical and scientific purposes.