Skip to main content

Property Dualism does not imply the unintuitive theory of Epiphenomenalism

So, another term paper.. This was for the 'Philosophy of Mind' (PHIL 132) with Prof J. Searle. I Don't remember many details, but do remember arguing with him for over an hour against the requirement that I submit this paper to turnitin.com. He finally got tired and said to just email him the paper. Probably many things wrong, but this is part of me, I guess (6/13/22)


Property Dualism is one of the most prominent theories on philosophy of mind, which tries to reconcile some of the problems that substance dualism faces without the reductionist approach materialists have taken. While it is successful in preserving qualia of the mind, it has come under strong criticism especially in terms of the problem of interaction. One answer for this dilemma is epiphenomenalism which denies any causal relation from mind to the physical world. Epiphenomenalism itself is seen troublesome as it is counterintuitive to say that one’s thoughts have no causal relation to what they do as a conscious being. This however, is not the only solution in terms of interaction; some property dualists have argued for theories that allow causation from mind to body. Hence, while property dualism does not imply epiphenomenalism, it is seen by some as a more plausible explanation, yet with significant opposition.

Property dualism is a way to explain consciousness in accordance with the modern notion that the universe is made up explicitly from physical substance, matter and energy, while preserving the subjective nature of the mind. It differs from substance dualism in that property dualists deny the existence of a separate substance that is distinct from the material substance. However, they maintain that the consciousness is not reducible to physical substance due to its first person ontology, and thus oppose most materialist theories of mind. Consciousness is regarded as a property of the brain, which in turn is made up of purely physical substance. Hence, property dualists argue, that mind is caused entirely by the physics of the brain and neurobiology. 

One of the main problems with this theory, and dualism in general, is the causation of one from the other, or the interaction. When property dualism proposes that the mind is caused by the brain, inevitably, the next question would be “how or whether the mind dictates what the body does?” If the answer is that minds do not cause physical events, the mental becomes an epiphenomenon and is consequently named epiphenomenalism. This however does not imply that the only answer to the mind body problem (in terms of prperty dualism) is epiphenomenalism. One can look the other way, claiming that the mental properties do cause bodily behaviour. This, however, leads to the problem of over determination: a single bodily movement would have two distinct causes, a neurobiological cause, which is determined by physical brain processes, and a mental cause. However, some have taken the position of denying that over determination is a problem, pointing that there are other properties that subject to the same criteria. (A famous argument is the causation of baseball breaking the window as formulated by Mills. He argued that the fact the it was the third such window breaking that yeah simply has multiple causes, one relating to the ball hitting window and the physical phenomenon, and the other the fact that there have been two other similar incidents. Mills, 1996.)  The other problem with this view is that it is at odds with the idea that physical world is causally closed, hence inviting epiphenomenalism. Thus, if a property dualist needs to preserve non-overdetermination and accept that the physical world is causally closed, he or she will have to fall back to declaring mental events are causally inefficacious. Yet, this does not imply that property dualism inevitably leads to epiphenomenalism. 

When property dualism tries to preserve causal closure of the material world and take on the view of epiphenomenalism, it faces another fundamental problem: it is starkly different from common intuition. This view denies the common notion that my thinking to raise my arm had nothing to do with my hand going up that exact moment. As Ellen Langer theorized in her 1975 thesis, minds give us an “Illusion of Control”.  While this is the most troublesome fact about epiphenomenalism, at least a couple of other arguments also have questioned this view. One is that if nothing is caused by mental states, why would it have evolved naturally, or what is the reason of existence. In addition, epiphenomenalism is unsatisfactory in the sense that while it claims to preserve causal closure of the physical world, it contradictorily maintains that mental events are caused by brain events. These problems call for revisions for the theory, and will become trivial if one were to distance from the traditional nomenclature of mind versus body. 

Thus, even though property dualism seem to invite epiphenomenalism trying to adhere to the fact that physical world is causally closed, epiphenomenalism seems to bring about an “absurd” solution to the mind body problem with the claim that mental events are causally inert. In addition, it struggles to maintain the necessity of the mental states (evolutionally,) and fails to properly account for the causal closure of the physical world. However, these problems could be avoided if one were to approve causation of physical events through mental events. While this brings another set of problems, it nevertheless provides a variation of property dualism that does not inherently imply epiphenomenalism.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fighting the Imaginary Demons

I wanted to write more comprehensively about the video I posted a bit ago where Zizek was claiming that Hillary is in fact more dangerous than trump. But like many other things I consider doing, I know I will never get to that, so thought I'd clarify some of the thought that went behind my agreeing with Zizek's argument -- to a certain extent, at least. So, this is just an outline of what I think, and in no way a proper argument, since, well, this is not an argument where I bring facts and examples. Though you are welcome to look more into the idea if you are interested. Also, keep in mind that this is exclusively coming from somewhat Marxist perspective. Hence the end goal is creating a classless society by building strong coalitions among the global working class First, here's the (video)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4v...]. My argument related to the video is that Hillary represents a real problem which perpetually creates the likes of Trump, and hence liberals...

Book Banning: The Right of Schools, Libraries and Other Institutions on Banning Books.

How would you feel if you were a Christian and were banned from reading the Bible, or if you were a Muslim, and were banned from reading the Qu'ran? As ridiculous as it may sound, these books are prominent among the thousands of books that have faced censorship throughout the history. With the free media movement today, though, censoring has faced severe criticism from authors, journalists, artists and other progressive activists. This matter has stirred up a lot of debate in two fronts: first being banning books in a universal level and the second, seen with a more moderate eye, being restricting children from accessing certain books. At the latter part, schools, libraries and other places related to children have become the focal point of the argument. The question arises when determining which books should be banned and most importantly, by whom? Even though it is favored by the majority to let above-mentioned institutions ban controversial books, this must be done only by a sep...

Amon Goeth in Schindler's list and pardoning the devil.

I finally watched it. I was attached to the movie the full three hours, was deeply disturbed by the imagery of the real events that was happening touched by the show of humanity and ended the movie with tears. Great movie... Yes! (Though, it wasn't a great movie, no. I want to write about that too, on a different post). While there were many scenes that are brilliant in many ways, one act puzzled me very much and I think was just pure genius. That is the scene where Amon Goeth kills the boy who was cleaning his bathroom bowl. Here's the last part of it... In the outset the scene portrays the devilish commander killing an innocent boy who think he was pardoned. But I think the scene goes far beyond that. It shows how Amon exercises his new found interpretation of power, power to pardon, in its ultimate sense by pardoning himself. Showing that he finally truly understand the meaning of power, the ultimate power yielded only by God, to pardon a person as villainous as he is...
Wet clothes are heavy, they feel uncomfortable, and they don't protect me against the cold weather any more. I can shed the clothes, free myself from their weight and be naked against the cold world. I'm not worried about being in my skin, I know they would first laugh at my nudity, then scold, forgetting I'm just like them, unclothed, empty and l ifeless. What's holding me back is the fear, fear of yielding to that lifeless emptiness.   I remember the warmth of my clothes, mentioning h-bar alone would get me elated; I could get drunk spending hours thinking about a small question that popped up in some corner of my mind.   I remember the comfort of their softness, look of that shiny eyes, and the softness of that dark brown hair, which would talk to my heart silently.   I remember the joy of being dressed, the enthusiasm that drives me crazy sometimes. The club, forums, and day-to-day news which used to remind me that I'm human, c...