Discover published sets by community

Eliminative Materialism holds that some or all mental states that we believe in do not exist. Proponent: Paul Churchland. Critics contend it fails to account for the reality of subjective experiences.

The Exclusion Argument, proposed by Jaegwon Kim, suggests that if physicalism is true and every physical event has a sufficient physical cause, then there is no need for mental causes. Critics argue for non-exclusive causation.

Downward Causation refers to the concept that higher-level phenomena (like mental states) can exert causal influence on lower-level physical processes. Critics often question the feasibility of such influence without violating physical laws.

Dual-Aspect Theory suggests that the mental and the physical are two aspects of the same substance. Proponent: Spinoza. Critics challenge how both aspects relate without invoking dualism or violating physicalism.

Interactionism posits that mental states, such as beliefs and desires, and physical states can causally affect one another. Proponent: Rene Descartes. Critics say it's difficult to explain how non-physical entities interact with physical substances.

Nonreductive Physicalism argues that while mental states are physical in nature, they are not reducible to physical properties. Proponents: Nancey Murphy and others. Critics maintain that it may not adequately solve the mind-body problem.

Anomalous Monism, proposed by Donald Davidson, suggests that while every mental event is paired with a physical event, there are no strict laws governing the relationship. Critics question how laws of nature fit into this framework.

Overdetermination suggests that a single effect can be caused by multiple independent causes at the same time. In mental causation, critics argue that this may lead to redundancy if both mental and physical events cause the same effect.

Epiphenomenalism argues that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events. Proponent: Thomas Huxley. Critics argue that it undermines notions of free will and moral accountability.