Gold & Stoljar's argument rejecting the
“explanatory sufficiency” of the radical neuron
doctrine depends on distinguishing it from the trivial neuron
doctrine. This distinction depends on the thesis of
“supervenience,” which depends on Hume's
regularity theory of causation. In contrast, the radical
neuron doctrine depends on a physical theory of causation,
which denies the supervenience thesis. Insofar as the target
article argues by drawing implications from the premise of
Humean causation, whereas the radical doctrine depends on the
competing premise of physical causation, the resulting critique
of the neuron doctrine amounts largely to begging the question
of causation.
