Antonella Corradini

In this chapter I try to show what an ontology for normative nonnaturalism could look like. Firstly, I inquire into the modal nature of the supervenience relation within a normative nonnaturalist framework. I surmise that the necessity preceding a strong normative supervenience relation is neither analytical nor nomological, but metaphysical. Borrowing from E. J. Lowe’s essentialist theory of necessity I argue that among the metaphysical determinations of an object’s essence there is also the property of possessing a certain _telic structure_. Secondly, I analyze the normative constitution relation, whose function is to identify what grounds supervenience. This analysis highlights the fact that end-directedness is a component of constitution along with descriptive properties. Thirdly, I show that supervenience follows from constitution and that the supervenience relation between descriptive and normative properties is obtained by means of the constitution analysis of the telic structure of the object displaying such properties.

Until quite recently, mind-body dualism has been regarded with deep suspicion by both philosophers and scientists. This has largely been due to the widespread identification of dualism in general with one particular version of it: the interactionist substance dualism of Réné Descartes. This traditional form of dualism has, ever since its first formulation in the seventeenth century, attracted numerous philosophical objections and is now almost universally rejected in scientific circles as empirically inadequate. During the last few years, however, renewed attention has begun to be paid to the dualistic point of view, as a result of increasing discontent with the prevailing materialism and reductionism of contemporary scientific and philosophical thought. Awareness has grown that dualism need not be restricted to its traditional form and that other varieties of dualism are not subject to the difficulties commonly raised against Descartes' own version of it. Interest in these alternative versions of dualism is growing fast today, because it seems that they are capable of capturing deep-seated philosophical intuitions, while also being fully consistent with the methodological assumptions and empirical findings of modern scientific work on the human mind and brain. The object of this book is to provide philosophers, scientists, their students, and the wider general public with an up-to-date overview of current developments in dualistic conceptions of the mind in contemporary philosophy and science.

The concept of emergence has seen a significant resurgence in philosophy and the sciences, yet debates regarding emergentist and reductionist visions of the natural world continue to be hampered by imprecision or ambiguity. Emergent phenomena are said to arise out of and be sustained by more basic phenomena, while at the same time exerting a "top-down" control upon those very sustaining processes. To some critics, this has the air of magic, as it seems to suggest a kind of circular causality. Other critics deem the concept of emergence to be objectionably anti-naturalistic. Objections such as these have led many thinkers to construe emergent phenomena instead as coarse-grained patterns in the world that, while calling for distinctive concepts, do not "disrupt" the ordinary dynamics of the finer-grained (more fundamental) levels. Yet, reconciling emergence with a (presumed) pervasive causal continuity at the fundamental level can seem to deflate emergence of its initially profound significance. This basic problematic is mirrored by similar controversy over how best to characterize the opposite systematizing impulse, most commonly given an equally evocative but vague term, "reductionism." The original essays in this volume help to clarify the alternatives: inadequacies in some older formulations and arguments are exposed and new lines of argument on behalf the two visions are advanced.

The concept of emergence has seen a significant resurgence in philosophy and the sciences, yet debates regarding emergentist and reductionist visions of the natural world continue to be hampered by imprecision or ambiguity. Emergent phenomena are said to arise out of and be sustained by more basic phenomena, while at the same time exerting a "top-down" control upon those very sustaining processes. To some critics, this has the air of magic, as it seems to suggest a kind of circular causality. Other critics deem the concept of emergence to be objectionably anti-naturalistic. Objections such as these have led many thinkers to construe emergent phenomena instead as coarse-grained patterns in the world that, while calling for distinctive concepts, do not "disrupt" the ordinary dynamics of the finer-grained (more fundamental) levels. Yet, reconciling emergence with a (presumed) pervasive causal continuity at the fundamental level can seem to deflate emergence of its initially profound significance. This basic problematic is mirrored by similar controversy over how best to characterize the opposite systematizing impulse, most commonly given an equally evocative but vague term, "reductionism." The original essays in this volume help to clarify the alternatives: inadequacies in some older formulations and arguments are exposed and new lines of argument on behalf the two visions are advanced.

In recent years numerous attempts have been made by analytic philosophers to _naturalize _various different domains of philosophical inquiry. All of these attempts have had the common goal of rendering these areas of philosophy amenable to empirical methods, with the intention of securing for them the supposedly objective status and broad intellectual appeal currently associated with such approaches. This volume brings together internationally recognised analytic philosophers, including Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen and Robert Audi, to question the project of naturalism. The articles investigate what it means to _naturalize_ a domain of philosophical inquiry and look at how this applies to the various sub-disciplines of philosophy including epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophy of the mind. The issue of whether naturalism is desirable is raised and the contributors take seriously the possibility that excellent analytic philosophy can be undertaken without naturalization. Controversial and thought-provoking, _Analytic Philosophy Without Naturalism_ examines interesting and contentious methodological issues in analytic philosophy and explores the connections between philosophy and science.

This article aims to examine Koellner’s reconstruction of Penrose’s second argument – a reconstruction that uses the DTK system to deal with Gödel’s disjunction issues. Koellner states that Penrose’s argument is unsound, because it contains two illegitimate steps. He contends that the formulas to which the T-intro and K-intro rules apply are both indeterminate. However, we intend to show that we can correctly interpret the formulas on the set of arithmetic formulas, and that, as a consequence, the two steps become legitimate. Nevertheless, the argument remains partially inconclusive. More precisely, the argument does not reach a result that shows there is no formalism capable of deriving all the true arithmetic propositions known to man. Instead, it shows that, if such formalism exists, there is at least one true non-arithmetic proposition known to the human mind that we cannot derive from the formalism in question. Finally, we reflect on the idealised character of the DTK system. These reflections highlight the limits of human knowledge, and, at the same time, its irreducibility to computation.

This note clarifies the significance of the proof of Gödel’s first disjunct obtained through the formalisation of Penrose’s second argument within the DTK system. It analyses two formulations of the first disjunct – one general and the other restricted – and dwells on the demonstration of the restricted version, showing that it yields the following result: if by F we denote the set of propositions derivable from any formalism and by K the set of mathematical propositions humanly knowable, then, given certain conditions, F necessarily differs from K. Thus it is possible that K surpasses F but also, on the contrary, that F surpasses K. In the latter case, however, the consistency of F is humanly undecidable.

Quantum physics, in contrast to classical physics, allows non-locality and indeterminism in nature. Moreover, the role of the observer seems indispensable in quantum physics. In fact, quantum physics, unlike classical physics, suggests a metaphysics that is not physicalism (which is today's official metaphysical doctrine). As is well known, physicalism implies a reductive position in the philosophy of mind, specifically in its two core areas, the philosophy of consciousness and the philosophy of action. Quantum physics, in contrast, is compatible with psychological non-reductionism, and actually seems to support it. The essays in this book explore, from various points of view, the possibilities of basing a non-reductive philosophy of mind on quantum physics. In doing so, they not only engage with the ontological and epistemological aspects of the question but also with the neurophysiological ones.

In this essay, we will try to provide a formal analysis of practical inference, attentive to the various phases in which it is articulated, and being so capable of explaining both the logical conclusiveness of the inference and the probabilistic nature of its conclusion. An innovative purpose of this article is to show how the final deliberation leading to action—the ultimate practical judgment—takes place according to a logic consistent with the use of Bayes’ theorem. This is why we refer to Bayesian practical inference in the title of this essay.

Herbert Spencer can be regarded as the precursor of current scientists and moral philosophers who try to naturalize ethics by providing for it biological and/or psychological foundations. Both Spencer and his contemporary followers are, however, faced with the problem whether naturalistic ethics is capable of a logically correct justification. The aim of this paper is to discuss this metaethical problem. I examine first different interpretations of Spencer's thought, and I maintain that on the basis of none of these interpretations Spencer commits a logical fallacy in a narrow sense. Rather, the British philosopher and contemporary naturalistic ethicists commit an epistemological naturalistic fallacy consisting in connecting the normativity of justification to the descriptivity of explanation. In the last part of the paper I therefore conduct a critical discussion of the role that the reliabilist perspective plays in the current context of naturalized moral epistemology.

In this essay, I examine those versions of hylomorphism that attribute to form a very strong explicative role. According to them, form is both the source of new emergent powers and expression of the finalist structure of organisms. The main aim of this essay is to show that these two aspects do not holdup because the form only exercises a structural function, but does not exert an autonomous explanatory function. The form only allows the material components to develop those powers that are not manifest in themselves, outside the configuration that forms as structure gives them. If the higher faculties of the human mind are really emergent over the neurophysiological ones, hylomorphism cannot explain it. As a consequence, hylomorphism does not have the resources to oppose materialism, on the one hand, and dualism, on the other.

Peter Menzies is among those contemporary philosophers of mind who have tried most deliberately to make mental causation compatible with nonreductive physicalism, thus proving the invalidity of Kim’s causal exclusion argument (Kim (2005), p. 17). The compatibility between mental causation and nonreductive physicalism will be the focus of this essay. In the first part, I shall expound the tenets of Menzies’ theory of mental causation. In the second, I shall emphasise the difficulties his theory encounters, that jeopardise his attempt to reconcilemental causation with physicalism, even though the sort of physicalism he champions takes a quite liberal shape.

In this essay I defend a kind of nonnaturalist normative supervenience, grounded in the essences of things. Essentialist theories, in fact, give us the tools to treat the nexus of normative supervenience as a nexus of metaphysical necessity, holding between the normative and the natural. In this context, essentialist grounding provides an explanation of normative supervenience that allows us to keep together both supervenience and nonnaturalism. Moreover, to achieve this significant result, I do not make use of hybrid properties, which are both normative and natural. Rather, I endeavour to show that the notion of hybrid property is based on an erroneous notion of grounding.

Interactive dualism is notorious for supporting genuine and autonomous mental causation that is allegedly impossible for its confliction with basic principles of physics. The purpose of this essay is to show the invalidity of this commonplace view, by arguing to the contrary in three different steps. First, I will deal with the objection about the non-scientific character of interactive dualism, as it is conceived of in present-day philosophy of mind. Second, I will illustrate and critically examine three contemporary models of dualistically understood mental causation. Finally, I will summarise the chief assumptions made in these models and try to lay down my own proposal.

In recent years numerous attempts have been made by analytic philosophers to _naturalize _various different domains of philosophical inquiry. All of these attempts have had the common goal of rendering these areas of philosophy amenable to empirical methods, with the intention of securing for them the supposedly objective status and broad intellectual appeal currently associated with such approaches. This volume brings together internationally recognised analytic philosophers, including Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen and Robert Audi, to question the project of naturalism. The articles investigate what it means to _naturalize_ a domain of philosophical inquiry and look at how this applies to the various sub-disciplines of philosophy including epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophy of the mind. The issue of whether naturalism is desirable is raised and the contributors take seriously the possibility that excellent analytic philosophy can be undertaken without naturalization. Controversial and thought-provoking, _Analytic Philosophy Without Naturalism_ examines interesting and contentious methodological issues in analytic philosophy and explores the connections between philosophy and science.