Skip to main content

Autonomy, Laws of Nature, and the Mind–Body Problem

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 350 Accesses

Part of the book series: Studies in Brain and Mind ((SIBM,volume 13))

Abstract

I started this book with a quote by Peter Machamer et al. (2000). They posited that without thinking about mechanisms we cannot understand the life sciences: we can neither reveal their ontological commitments, nor handle the various philosophical problems arising in that scientific context. In this book I have argued that one cannot understand the new mechanistic approach without thinking about the metaphysics of mechanisms. In this chapter, I summarize the conclusions of the book and thereby provide a summary of the metaphysical theory of mechanisms developed. Furthermore, I discuss the question whether the resulting approach can be used to argue for anti-reductionism with regard to higher-level sciences and the mind, and I highlight a few differences between the new mechanistic thinking and more traditional law-based approaches to the metaphysics of explanation in order to show that the new mechanistic approach indeed provides new perspectives on the metaphysics of the life sciences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Is the realm of lower-level mechanisms causally closed? For the sake of argument, I ignore this question here. Since I want to evaluate whether the new mechanistic approach suggests a view in line with non-reductive physicalism, and non-reductive physicalists usually accept premise 3, I just assume that we can somehow make sense of the claim that the mechanistic realm is causally closed.

References

  • Bechtel, W. (2007). Reducing psychology while maintaining its autonomy via mechanistic explanations. In M. Schouten & H. Looren de Jong (Eds.), The matter of the mind: Philosophical essays on psychology, neuroscience and reduction (pp. 172–198). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Krickel, B. (2018). Autonomy, Laws of Nature, and the Mind–Body Problem. In: The Mechanical World. Studies in Brain and Mind, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03629-4_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics