Interactionism for the discerning mind?
- 31 Downloads
Jaegwon Kim has developed an argument that interactionist dualists cannot account for the causal relations between minds and brains. This paper develops a closely related argument that focuses instead on the causal relations between minds and neurons. While there are several promising responses to Kim’s argument, their plausibility relies on a relatively simple understanding of mind–brain relations. Once we shift our focus to neurons, these responses lose their appeal. The problem is that even if mind–brain causal pairing can be explained at no great theoretical cost, the complex interactions non-physical minds would need to have with neurons cannot.
KeywordsInteractionism Dualism Pairing problem Mental causation
- Anderson, M. L. (2014). After phrenology: Neural reuse and the interactive brain. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Foster, J. A. (1968). Psychophysical causal relations. American Philosophical Quarterly, 5, 64–70.Google Scholar
- Hommel, B., & Elsner, B. (2009). Acquisition, representation, and control of action. In E. Morsella, J. A. Bargh, & P. M. Gollwitzer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of human action (pp. 371–398). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kim, J. (2001). Lonely souls: Causality and substance dualism. In K. J. Corcoran (Ed.), Soul, body, and survival (pp. 30–43). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Plantinga, A. (2007). Materialism and Christian belief. In P. van Inwagen & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Persons: Human and divine (pp. 99–141). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar