Is property dualism the correct account of the mind? (25)
Property dualism (PD) is a theory of the mind which claims that there are at least some mental properties which
cannot be reduced to, nor do they supervene upon, physical properties. Mental properties are a distinct kind of
fundamental property, they are sui generis, and therefore physicalism is false. This essay will consider issues with
property dualism, including a) the problem of other minds, b) the empirical interaction problem and c) the counter-
intuitive implications of epiphenomenalist PD. While c) is a weak issue on its own, the three issues combined are
highly damaging for the theory. Thus, it will be concluded that property dualism is not the correct account of the
mind.
One challenge to property dualism is posed by the problem of other minds. This objection accuses PD of not allowing
us to have knowledge of the existence of other minds, thereby collapsing into solipsism. If it is the case that
phenomenal properties of consciousness are separate and distinct from the physical, we are not able to infer from
other people’s physical behaviour that they are conscious. I can experience my own mind from within using
introspection, but I cannot have knowledge of other people’s minds in this way. Thus, it seems possible that I am the
only one who is conscious and everyone else are p-zombies, i.e. a physical and functional duplicate of a human but
without any phenomenal properties. Thus, as under PD I cannot infer from behaviour that people have a mind, it is
in danger of collapsing into solipsism. This is a unsatisfactory conclusion which is very counter-intuitive, thus
suggesting that the theory may be incorrect. Therefore, the problem of other minds provides a challenge PD.
One could attempt to defend PD by presenting an argument from analogy to demonstrate that it is reasonable to
infer that other people also have minds. I know that I have a mind and I know that my mind is the cause of my
behaviour (under interactionist PD). Other people behave similarly to the way I do and therefore, by analogy, I can
infer that their behaviour has the same cause as mine, i.e. it is caused by a mind and mental properties. Therefore,
the argument from analogy attempts to demonstrate how PD does not collapse into solipsism, thus defending the
theory.
However, this is a very weak response and fails to successfully defend the theory. The analogy presented is very
weak as it argues from a single case, i.e. my mind. I may be a special case and the only conscious being. It is flawed to
infer from a single piece of evidence to a general claim as this is a logical fallacy, hasty generalisation, and thus this
response fails to defend PD. Furthermore, following Hume, the argument from analogy is unsuccessful as it relies on
the claim that similar causes have similar effects. This is not a necessary truth and there are instances where this is
not the case. For example, two people yawn (effect), but one is yawning out of contempt (cause), while the other is
yawning out of tiredness (a different cause). This example proves that the existence of my own mind causing my
behaviour is not enough to assume that other minds exist. Therefore, the problem of other minds still proves to be
damaging for PD.
A stronger response argues that the existence of other minds is the best hypothesis. This is an abductive argument:
inference to the best explanation. It claims that interactionist property dualism is the best explanation for why
human beings behave the way that they do, with regards to its explanatory and predictive power. Interactionist PD
claims that mental properties have causal powers and cause behaviour and other physical effects. They would
examine what the possible causes are for human behaviour and conclude that, due to the intricacy and systematicity
of human behaviour, a mind is the most likely explanation for why others behave as they do. The best explanation
for this difference is that humans are conscious and have mental states, and that these mental states cause their
behaviour. Albeit not providing certainty, the high probability supporting PD is a strength of this argument. Thus,
using this abductive argument, PD seems to be able to overcome the problem of other minds.
However, this response is significantly undermined when objections to interactionist PD are considered. The most
damaging line of critique against interactionist PD is the empirical interaction problem. This issue successfully
demonstrates that interactionist PD is incompatible with our modern day understanding of science, and more
specifically, physics. According to physics, the universe exists as a closed system. This means that the total amount of
energy within the universe stays constant: no new energy is added to it, and none can be taken away. However,
according to interactionist PD, the mind (a non-physical thing) interacts with the body (a physical thing, governed by
laws of nature within the universe). If this were the case, energy would be added to the universe when the mind
interacts with the body. As interactionist PD goes against the fundamental beliefs of physics, this provides good
reason to dismiss the theory. Therefore, the empirical interactionist problem is sufficient to dismiss interactionist PD
as highly unlikely and therefore incorrect.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller MasterPhilosopherAlevel. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $26.81. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.