Talk:Causal closure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is just a stub based on my limited knowledge of the topic, please add to it. Lemonysam 18:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


I wonder if it would be better merged into another article. Not sure what potential there is for expansion and how much it overlaps with existing ones. Richard001 (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm strongly against merger. It is an important topic in its own right, and one that is frequently overlooked: It is not uncommon for philosophers to present theories of consciousness that are really only theories of conscious experience, without acknowledging that the problem of mental causation has been left untouched. (Peter Ells (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

Weak and strong form[edit]

I'm not clear on what the difference between these two forms are. They sound synonymous to me. Richard001 (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would be useful to have an example of a situation in which weak causal closure allowed a particular form of mental causation, but strong causal closure did not. (Peter Ells (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

reason vs cause[edit]

Under the criticism section "ignoring the phenomena" shouldn't the first type of explanation of purposeful behavior be explained with reasons and not causes? Wasn't this a very important distinction to the ordinary language philosophers like Ryle, Anscombe, Wittgenstein? I don't have enough experience to rewrite that section but I think most philosophers would not say that both of those type of explanation are causal, only the second one.