more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 3404

[filed under theme 17. Mind and Body / D. Property Dualism / 2. Anomalous Monism ]

Full Idea

Davidson's thesis is that if mental events of a particular kind cause physical events of a particular kind, and the two kinds are connected by a law, then they must both be physical kinds.

Gist of Idea

Davidson claims that mental must be physical, to make mental causation possible

Source

report of Donald Davidson (Mental Events [1970]) by Jaegwon Kim - Philosophy of Mind p.137

Book Ref

Kim,Jaegwon: 'Philosophy of Mind' [Westview 1998], p.137


A Reaction

Davidson would pretty obviously be right. The whole problem here is the idea of a 'law'. You can only have strict law for simple entities, like particles and natural kinds. The brain is a mess, like weather or explosions.


The 13 ideas with the same theme [mind is a causal oddity in a physical world]:

Anomalous monism says nothing at all about the relationship between mental and physical [Davidson, by Kim]
Mind is outside science, because it is humanistic and partly normative [Davidson, by Lycan]
Anomalous monism says causes are events, so the mental and physical are identical, without identical properties [Davidson, by Crane]
If rule-following and reason are 'anomalies', does that make reductionism impossible? [Davidson, by Kim]
Davidson claims that mental must be physical, to make mental causation possible [Davidson, by Kim]
There are no strict psychophysical laws connecting mental and physical events [Davidson]
Obviously all mental events are causally related to physical events [Davidson]
Mental entities do not add to the physical furniture of the world [Davidson]
Contrary to the 'anomalous monist' view, there may well be intentional causal laws [Fodor]
If causes are basic particulars, this doesn't make conscious and physical properties identical [Papineau]
There are many psychophysicals laws - about the effects of sweets, colours and soft cushions [Mellor/Crane]
Cars and bodies obey principles of causation, without us knowing any 'strict laws' about them [Flanagan]
Denial of purely mental causation will lead to epiphenomenalism [Maslin]