University of Birmingham A powerful new Anomalous Monism Taylor, John License: Other (please specify with Rights Statement) Document Version Peer reviewed version Citation for published version (Harvard): Taylor, J 2018, A powerful new Anomalous Monism. in M Guta (ed.), Consciousness and the Ontology of Properties. 1st edn, Routledge, New York, pp. 39-52. Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal Publisher Rights Statement: Checked for eligibility 15/06/2018 This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge/CRC Press in Consciousness and the Ontology of Properties on 19/07/2018, available online: https://www.routledge.com/Consciousness-and-the-Ontology-of-Properties/Guta/p/book/9781138097865 General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive. If you believe that this is the case for this document, please contact [email protected] providing details and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate. Download date: 27. Sep. 2021 Henry Taylor A Powerful New Anomalous Monism Henry Taylor This is a draft of a paper that is forthcoming in M. Guta (ed.) The Ontology of Consciousness. (Routledge). Please cite from published version. Abstract I distinguish between two broadly different interpretations of anomalous monism. I then pose problems for both. I argue that one interpretation leads to well known problems concerning epiphenomenalism, whilst the other interpretation is implausible because it fails to give a good account of the role of properties in causation. I then develop a new version of anomalous monism, which can avoid both of these issues. This view draws heavily on the metaphysics of dispositions, as well as work on causation. I conclude that anomalous monism is deserving of a reappraisal. Keywords: Anomalous monism, Properties, Epiphenomenalism, Laws. 1. What is Anomalous monism? Anomalous monism was famously put forward by Donald Davidson (1970a). Three claims lie at its core (Davidson 1970a: 105-106): i) The Principle of Causal Interaction: at least some mental events interact causally with physical events. ii) The Nomological Character of Causality: where there is causality, there must be a law. That is to say, events related as cause and effect fall under strict deterministic laws. iii) The Anomalism of the Mental: there are no strict deterministic laws on the basis of which mental events can be predicted and explained. I will not primarily be concerned with providing motivation for these claims. This is not to say that the motivations for them are unimportant or that the claims are 1 Henry Taylor uncontentious. For example, Davidson describes claim (iii) as ‘true and worth arguing for’ (1993: 3), though many have thought that it is neither true, nor worth arguing for (Crane and Mellor 1990: 196). (i) and (ii) are also controversial: most would accept (i), though its acceptance is by no means universal (Jackson 1982) and some do not believe in laws at all, and so would presumably reject (ii) (Mumford 2004: ch.9, van Frassen 1989). So, it is an important and substantial question whether we should accept (i-iii). Nonetheless, it is not a question that will be considered in this paper. Rather, I am primarily interested in whether there is a view of the mind that can reconcile these claims, rather than with providing the background reasons one might have to accept them.1 Though the motivations for these claims will not be directly addressed, it is worth noting that this paper is still of interest to those unconvinced by (i-iii). This is because once these claims are correctly fleshed out, they turn out to be more anodyne than perhaps they initially appear. This, in turn, may alleviate resistance to them. It is also worth emphasising that anomalous monists may accept weakened versions of these claims. For example, few contemporary thinkers would accept that causes and effects must fall under deterministic laws, as (ii) asserts. However, a view that denies that laws are deterministic, but otherwise accepts (ii) and a suitably modified version of (iii), would clearly still deserve the name ‘anomalous monism’. This paper is not concerned with discussing these minor modifications of claims (i- iii), so I will leave them as they are in what follows. 1 My approach is similar in this way to Davidson’s own, though he does give some reasons to accept (iii), which is the most contentious of the claims (1970a: 118-119). 2 Henry Taylor Davidson’s view has been interpreted in various importantly different ways. In section 2, I divide these interpretations into two broad kinds, which I call the ‘property dualist’ and the ‘nominalist’ interpretations. I outline one objection to each interpretation, and argue that a third version of anomalous monism is required. I develop one in sections 3-5, arguing that this version can avoid both of the problems associated with the other two interpretations. I conclude that this is the best version of anomalous monism. In section 6, I discuss the relation of this view to mind-brain identity theory and in section 7, I discuss what impact the view has on the ontology of events. In this paper, I will take anomalous monism to be any view of the mind that embraces (i-iii), or perhaps some minor modifications of these claims. So, as I use the term, we need not accept all of the claims that Davidson himself accepted in order to be anomalous monists: to be an anomalous monist we just need to preserve the three core claims. Relatedly, I should be clear that I certainly do not claim that the version of anomalous monism that I develop is what Davidson actually had in mind. On the contrary, for reasons that will become clear, I think this is not the case. So, I do not claim that Davidson would be happy with the view, just that it is the most plausible view of the mind that reconciles (i-iii). It may be asked why readers should care about anomalous monism. After all, the view has largely fallen out of favour in the contemporary debate, and is rarely discussed in the metaphysics of mind these days. In response to this, I say that we should examine the strongest version of a position before we dismiss it. It is my contention that the strongest version of anomalous monism has yet to be supplied. The view argued for in this paper can avoid the objections that have been thought by 3 Henry Taylor many to be fatal for anomalous monism. Therefore, if what I say in this paper is correct, then the current unpopularity of anomalous monism is unjustified, and the view is deserving of a reappraisal. 2. Two interpretations, two objections. I divide interpretations of anomalous monism into two broad classes. These classes are distinguished by how they interpret the word ‘property’. Sometimes, ‘property’ is used in a realist sense, to refer to a real constituent of the world, which exists independently of the way we describe it. For example, plausibly the charge of a particular electron is a feature of the electron, which would exist even if humans did not exist, and could not describe it, and is distinct from all of its other properties such as its mass. On this meaning, to say that an object has a property is metaphysically heavyweight: it means that it has some objective, real feature. Conversely, sometimes ‘property’ is used in a less heavyweight sense, where properties are more closely allied with concepts, or predicates, or descriptions. On this use, to say that an object has a certain property just means that a certain predicate (description/concept) applies truly to it, but this does not imply that there must be one single unique property (in the heavyweight sense) that the object has in virtue of which that predicate applies to it. 2 For example, it is certainly true to say of me that I am ‘not the Eiffel Tower’. In the lightweight sense, then, I have the property of being not the Eiffel Tower (because it is true to say of me that I am not the Eiffel Tower). In the more heavyweight sense, though, I do not have a single property of being not the Eiffel 2 This distinction in the way that ‘property’ is used will be familiar to metaphysicians, e.g. Mellor (1991) and Heil (2003: 22-30). 4 Henry Taylor Tower. Rather, I have properties such as mass, height and so on. In addition to all of these properties, I do not have the additional property of being not the Eiffel Tower.