Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
A. Leggett (2005)
A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom DownPhysics Today, 58
Jessica Wilson (1999)
How Superduper Does a Physicalist Supervenience Need to BeThe Philosophical Quarterly, 49
C. Gillett (2007)
Understanding the new reductionism: The metaphysics of science and compositional reductionThe Journal of Philosophy, 104
C. Gillett (2007)
A Mechanist Manifesto for the Philosophy of Mind: A Third Way for FunctionalistsJournal of Philosophical Research, 32
C. Gillett (2010)
Moving beyond the subset model of realization: The problem of qualitative distinctness in the metaphysics of scienceSynthese, 177
Jessica Wilson (2010)
Non-reductive Physicalism and Degrees of FreedomThe British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61
C. Gillett (2013)
Understanding the Sciences Through the Fog of “Functionalism(s)”
C. Gillett (2013)
Constitution, and Multiple Constitution, in the Sciences: Using the Neuron to Construct a Starting FrameworkMinds and Machines, 23
K. Fine (2001)
The Question of RealismPhilosopher's Imprint, 1
J. Fodor (1974)
Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis)Synthese, 28
J. Schaffer (2016)
Grounding in the image of causationPhilosophical Studies, 173
P. Machamer, L. Darden, C. Craver (2000)
Thinking about MechanismsPhilosophy of Science, 67
S. Weinberg, F. Wilczek (1993)
Dreams of a Final TheoryPhysics Today, 46
(2007)
Explaining the Brain
P. Simons (2006)
Real wholes, real parts : Mereology without algebraThe Journal of Philosophy, 103
Derk Pereboom (2002)
ROBUST NONREDUCTIVE MATERIALISMThe Journal of Philosophy, 99
Jens Harbecke (2014)
The role of supervenience and constitution in neuroscientific researchSynthese, 191
C. Gillett (2002)
The dimensions of realization: a critique of the Standard viewAnalysis, 62
P. Anderson (1972)
More is different.Science, 177 4047
C. Gillett (2007)
Hyper-Extending the Mind?: Setting Boundaries in the Special SciencesPhilosophical Topics, 35
C. Gillett (2016)
Reduction and Emergence in Science and Philosophy
G. Piccinini (2004)
Functionalism, Computationalism, and Mental StatesStudies in History and Philosophy of Science, 35
Kit Fine (2012)
Metaphysical Grounding: Guide to ground
Jens Harbecke (2015)
Regularity Constitution and the Location of Mechanistic LevelsFoundations of Science, 20
D. Lewis (1972)
Psychophysical and theoretical identificationsAustralasian Journal of Philosophy, 50
Jens Harbecke (2010)
Mechanistic Constitution in Neurobiological ExplanationsInternational Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 24
Jessica Wilson (2009)
Determination, realization and mental causationPhilosophical Studies, 145
C. Glymour (2004)
Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation
Michael Baumgartner (2010)
Interventionism and EpiphenomenalsimCanadian Journal of Philosophy, 40
K. Aizawa (2007)
The Biochemistry of Memory Consolidation: A Model System for the Philosophy of MindSynthese, 155
John Schaffer (2009)
On What Grounds What
Marcelo Sabatés (2002)
Mind in a Physical WorldPhilosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65
Jessica Wilson (2014)
No Work for a Theory of GroundingInquiry, 57
M. Couch (2011)
Mechanisms and constitutive relevanceSynthese, 183
(1969)
Content and consciousness
Lawrence Shapiro (2004)
The Mind Incarnate
S. Luper (1992)
The Absurdity of LifePhilosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52
C. Gillett (2003)
The Metaphysics of Realization, Multiple Realizability, and the Special SciencesThe Journal of Philosophy, 100
J. Woodward (2015)
Interventionism and Causal ExclusionPhilosophy and Phenomenological Research, 91
[Compositional explanations in the sciences have been amazingly successful. Given their success, I outline a strategy focused on such compositional explanation that I term “Engagement” that I argue offers the best prospects for illuminating the compositional concepts of such explanations and also the metaphysics of nature itself. In contrast, I show the prominent philosophical accounts of verticality all fail to follow Engagement and hence provide inadequate accounts of verticality in compositional explanation and nature. I also detail how a minority approach in philosophy, that does follow Engagement, offers the most promising account of verticality in science and nature. My conclusion is that in the future, philosophers interested in the metaphysics of nature, and scientific composition, need to follow the rules of Engagement.]
Published: Nov 9, 2016
Keywords: Biological Individual; Vertical Relation; Compositional Relation; Mutual Manipulability; Analytic Metaphysic
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.