Epiphenomenalism Flashcards
What is epiphenomenalism
This is theory that the physical world can cause mental states I.e. Stepping on a pin causes pain. However, the mind has no causal power. Therefore the mind has no causal power over the body our behaviour is all caused by unconscious brain processes. As the mind also has no causal power at all, the mind cannot cause other thoughts
What is T Huxley’s analogy of the steam train ?
He said that the mind and body are analogous to a steam train. This is in the sense that the engine is the body and the steam whistle is the mind. The steam whistle has no causal power over the train which corresponds to the mind which has no causal power over the body
How might property dualism lead to ephiphenomenalism
The relationship between property dualism and interaction may not work and lead to the stance of ephiphenomenalism
Property dualists argue that consciousness arises from the physical brain and the mind supervenes on top of the brain. This may be analogous to a projector projecting a projection which is similar to the physical brain projecting consciousness.
It then becomes difficult to say that the mind can have causal power over the body in the same way that a projection cannot have causal power over a projector. This leads to the stance of ephiphenomenalism
How does ephiphenomenalism get around Stuart’s conceptual and empirical problem ?
By supporting ephiphenomenalism, you don’t have to say that the mind creates physical causes.
I.e the pin in foot still causes us to feel pain but the mind is powerless to the physical
How could ephiphenomenalism fit more comfortably with a property dualist view ?
As property dualists argue that mental properties cannot be physically described but are not distinct from physical substances
Compatible theories I.e frank Jackson is an epiphenomenalist and property dualist
What is the criticism of epiphenomenalism about the causal redundancy of the mental ?
Response ?
Further reply?
This criticism follows that ephiphenomenalism seems very counter intuitive as it seems instinctually obvious that mental states cause other mental states
It could be replied that our intuitions could be wrong. Just because a thought is widespread, it does not mean it is correct.
However a damaging further response to this articulates that ephiphenomenalism doesn’t fit well with our concept of evolution. This is because you would assume that mental properties could evolve over time to cause other mental states contributing to our survival.
Epiphenomenalism presents the idea that these mental properties have not evolved as they make no difference to what we do.
Epiphenomenalism therefore conflicts with our best instincts and our best account of the origin of consciousness
What is the criticism of the argument from introspection ?
Response ?
Further reply ?
Why is this damaging ?
Epiphenomenalism states that the mind has no causal power over anything meaning that it would not support the idea that thoughts can cause other thoughts. This goes against our basic intuitions e.g. It would dismiss the idea that the thought of being hungry causes me to go and get food
If physical processes cause our belief about the mind, we could not know our minds as our beliefs would be unjustified.
Ephiphenomenalism would therefore undermine all of our knowledge of the mind
Charmers could respond to this by saying that knowledge of experiences is acquaintance knowledge. He argues that we are directly aware of our experiences but there is no causal relation. For example me being in pain depends on my being in pain but is not caused by it
This response is unsuccessful as it does not account for thoughts not being able to cause other thoughts which is overwhelmingly counter intuitive
This criticism is the most damaging as chalmers’ response cannot justify denying that thoughts causing other thoughts
What is the criticism about free will and responsibility ?
Response ?
Further response ?
There is an issue with ephiphenomenalism and free will as if the mind has no causal power then we cannot justify our belief in free will as we have no conscious power over our actions. There is therefore a further issue that we could justify not being in control of immoral issues.
‘Choice’ is reduced to a mere brain process that we have no mental influence over, we are therefore unable to make genuine free choices.
Response -
Hume may argue that this misunderstands free will which could be defined in a way which covered with a lack of conscious choice
However even if free will was defined in this way coherent with a lack of conscious choice, ephiphenomenalism articulates that the mind has 0 control, not just a lack of so this criticism still stands.
Further , ephiphenomenalism seems to dismiss humanity’s unique capacity for mental rationality with its dismissal of causal power of the mental. This is even more problematic as it contradicts basic human attributes
