The downward causation argument against emergentism: a problematic objection

This paper addresses the main problems of the concept of emergence as it is applied to the problem of the mind. Its aim is to present an argument against one of its biggest challenges, namely the argument of downward causation. I call the soundness of this argument into question by exposing problems in two of its premises, thereby demonstrating that it cannot be coherently formulated. In brief, the argument's three premises are the causal closure of the physical, the causal efficacy of the mental, and the premise of non-overdetermination, which is the claim that the physical effects of mental causes are not, in general, causally overdetermined. I direct the main thrust of my objection at the causal closure premise, exposing the difficulties in developing an accurate definition of 'physical.' In addition, I challenge the third premise, that is, the claim that systematic causal overdetermination ought to be excluded where psychophysical causation is concerned.