nucleation

LIT-722: Nonreductive Physicalism and the Limits of the Exclusion Principle

2 min read

Properties5
StatusActive — read 2026-10-05 (NOTE-560): in full, from the authors' accepted manuscript on List's LSE page. Worth reading for a test of when a higher-level property is a cause in its own right. On a difference-making account, a higher-level property excludes its own realizer as the cause exactly when the effect would still follow had the property been realized differently (realization-insensitivity). Whether that holds is a fact about each causal system, not an a priori truth. Pernu (LIT-147) argues the neuroprosthetic example cannot carry it.
Tagsmetaphysics, philosophy-of-science
RivalsLIT-147 — Mental causation via neuroprosthetics? A critical analysis
Cited as “paper” byNOTE-560 — Nonreductive Physicalism and the Limits of the Exclusion Principle
Cited as “source” byTHEORY-133 — In List and Menzies's account of causes as difference-makers, a higher-level property that makes a difference to an effect is its cause, and its realizer is not, exactly when in some nearest situation without that realizer the property is realized differently and the effect still occurs; which holds depends on each causal system's counterfactual structure, not on levels a priori

Graph View

Christian List & Peter Menzies (2009), Journal of Philosophy 106(9):475–502 — DOI-10.5840/jphil2009106936

Key takeaways

  • Causes as proportional difference-makers (§II). F makes a difference to G iff in relevantly similar situations F → G and ¬F → ¬G. Condition (i) rules out causes too unspecific, condition (ii) causes too specific: the pigeon trained on red pecks because the target is red, not because it is crimson.
  • Kim’s exclusion principle is false on this account (§III). A property can cause G although its realizer is causally sufficient for G.
  • A revised principle (§IV) says a property and its realizer never both cause the same effect. Its truth is “a contingent matter”: a compatibility result gives necessary and sufficient conditions under which both are causes. They require the higher-level relation to be realization-sensitive.
  • Downward exclusion (§V). If the higher-level property M causes B, it excludes its realizer N exactly when B is present in some closest worlds where M holds without N. Then the higher-level relation is realization-insensitive, and M is causally autonomous.
  • The empirical claim. The authors suggest the special sciences “typically” require higher-level causal relations to be invariant under changes of realization, so downward exclusion is common. That is an observation about practice, not a result.

Standing in the record

Filed on 2026-10-05 at the owner’s request, as a supplement to the essay on organizational will. The essay’s §5.3 asks what an agentive explanation of an organization adds over a mechanism. This paper offers a test: the organization-level property is the cause if the outcome would survive re-realizing it, with different people in the roles, different routes or different procedures. The account is THEORY-133.

Pernu (LIT-147) argues that the neuroprosthetic example List and Menzies use supports mind–brain identity rather than autonomy. Declared as a rival reading.

Backlinks