ABSTRACT
This chapter concerns the arguments for supervenience, in particular for the supervenience of the mental on the physical, than with questions of precisely how to formulate the doctrine. It shows that, on the contrary, the doctrine of supervenience is a simple consequence of some evident truths. The chapter considers the most contemporary philosophers would be persuaded by an argument for supervenience that can be avoided only by accepting this extreme inverted spectrum hypothesis. The argument of the chapter shows that mental causes must somehow coincide with physical causes. Exactly how we understand this conclusion, however, depends on how we think about causation. However, there are good arguments for being dissatisfied with this anemic view of causation and for preferring to view causal relata as facts rather than as Davidsonian bare particulars.
