Alexander Daniel Carruth

A crucial question for both philosophy and for science concerns the kind of relationship that obtains between entities—objects, properties, states, processes, kinds and so on—that exist at apparently higher and lower ‘levels’ of reality. According to reductionism, seeming higher-level entities can in fact be fully accounted for by more fundamental, lower-level entities. Conversely, emergentists of various stripes hold that whilst higher-level entities depend in some important sense on lower-level entities, they are nevertheless irreducible to them. This introductory paper outlines the context of the debate between emergentists and reductionists; offers a broad characterisation of ‘strong’ or ontological emergence, and provides summaries of each of the papers to come in this special issue.

One powerful argument for dualism is provided by Chalmers: the ‘zombie’ or conceivability argument. This paper aims to establish that if one adopts the ‘Powerful Qualities’ account of properties developed by Martin and Heil, this argument can be resisted at the first premise: the claim that zombies are conceivable is, by the lights of Chalmers’ own account of conceivability, false. The Powerful Qualities account is outlined. Chalmers’ argument, and several distinctions which underlie it, are explained. It is argued that to make sense of the claim that zombies are conceivable, some account of properties must be given. The paper’s central claim is presented and defended from potential responses: given the Powerful Qualities view, zombies are in fact inconceivable. Finally, an error theory is presented, which offers an explanation of why so many have taken the conceivability of zombies to be unproblematic, and the view is briefly contrasted with Russellian monism.

One recently popular way to characterise strong emergence is to say that emergent entities possess novel causal powers. However, there is little agreement concerning the nature of powers. One controversy involves whether powers are single- or multi-track; that is, whether each power has only one manifestation type, or whether a single power can be directed towards a number of distinct manifestations. Another concerns how powers operate: whether a lone power manifests when triggered by the presence of a suitable stimulus, or whether powers operate mutually such that several powers must ‘work together’ to bring about a particular manifestation. This paper examines how these distinctions—which can be cross-combined to frame four distinct accounts of the nature of powers—bear on the debate between emergentists and reductionists.

This paper examines the prevalent assumption that when people interact online via proxies—avatars—they encounter each other. Through an exploration of the ontology of users and their avatars we argue that, contrary to the trend within current discussions of interaction online, this cannot be unproblematically assumed. If users could be considered in some sense identical to their avatars, then it would be clear how an encounter with an avatar could ground an encounter with another user. We therefore engage in a systematic investigation of several conceptions of identity, concluding that in none of these senses can users and avatars be identified. We go on to explore how current accounts of identity-as-selfhood online might resolve this problem by appealing to narrativity or authorship, ultimately concluding that as these accounts stand they are unable to provide grounds for the claim that users encounter each other online and so supplementary work is required.

Drawing on resources from debates concerning the metaphysics of powers, this essay introduces a novel approach to the relationship between the more- and less-complex. Flat Holism preserves some key reductionist commitments, as it involves no radical ontological novelty, for instance, and is consistent with a one- or no-level ontology. It also, however, adopts the emergentist idea that the whole or context plays a crucial, metaphysically determinative role. The commitments of Flat Holism are explored and delimited through comparison with two ‘nearby neighbour’ accounts: Sydney Shoemaker’s Micro-latency account and Carl Gillett’s Mutualism. Some potential advantages of Flat Holism are discussed in the final section of the essay.

Emergentists hold that higher-level phenomena are something ‘over and above’ the sum of their most basic parts. Typically, this involves the claim that emergent phenomena are both distinct from and novel with respect to the base phenomena from which they emerge, whilst nevertheless being dependent upon the base phenomena. A popular way to characterise strong metaphysical emergence is to hold that emergent entities must possess novel causal powers. Underlying this trend is a commitment to ‘Alexander’s Dictum’, which can be roughly glossed as the claim that to exist is to have causal powers. Alexander's Dictum, however, does not enjoy universal assent. Nor is it clear exactly how the rough gloss of the principle ought to be finessed. This paper examines the role the principle plays in the debate between emergentists and reductionists; the motivations for endorsing it; criticisms which it faces, and responses to these criticisms. It argues that whilst these criticisms may show that Alexander's Dictum cannot be endorsed as a fully general principle, nevertheless, it can be formulated in manner that makes it suitable for use in the emergence debate. Finally, some wider consequences of giving causal powers a central role in the debate between emergentists and reductionists are examined.

Physicalism can be roughly characterised as the view that everything is physical, or that everything that is fundamental is physical, or that any non-physical entity—property, substance, fact, event, kind and what have you—is both dependent upon and fully determined by physical entities. Perhaps the greatest challenge facing physicalism is to explain how conscious experience can be accounted for within the physicalist framework. Given these rough characterisations of physicalism, before setting out to address the problem posed by consciousness, there is some prior conceptual work that must be done. In order for debates concerning the nature of consciousness and the ontology of mind and body to proceed in good order, something needs to be said about what it is for an entity to be a specifically physical entity. This paper offers reasons to think that, (i) at least given certain common metaphysical assumptions, discussions of what it is to be physical in general ought to be primarily concerned with what it is to be a physical property and that (ii) two popular approaches to characterising the physical - the Via Negativa and Object Physicalist approaches - face a serious problem.