Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
- John Heil & David Robb (2003). Mental Properties. American Philosophical Quarterly 40 (3):175-196.It is becoming increasingly clear that the deepest problems currently exercising philosophers of mind arise from an ill-begotten ontology, in particular, a mistaken ontology of properties. After going through some preliminaries, we identify three doctrines at the heart of this mistaken ontology: (P) For each distinct predicate, “F”, there exists one, and only one, property, F, such that, if “F” is applicable to an object a, then “F” is applicable in virtue of a’s being F. (U) Properties are universals, not particulars. (D) Every property is either categorical or dispositional, but not both. We show how these doctrines influence current philosophical thinking about the mind, suggest and defend an alternative conception of properties, and indicate how this conception provides answers to two puzzles besetting contemporary philosophy of mind: the problem of mental causation and the problem of qualia.In my reading list | Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize |My bibliography
| Export citation | Scholar
Discussion of John Heil & David Robb, Mental properties
Nothing in this forum yet.
Similar books and articles
Worries about mental causation are prominent in contemporary discussions of the mind and human agency. Originally, the problem of mental causation was that of understanding how a mental substance (thought to be immaterial) could interact with a material substance, a body. Most philosophers nowadays repudiate immaterial minds, but the problem of mental causation has not gone away. Instead, focus has shifted to mental properties. How could mental properties be causally relevant to bodily behavior? How could something mental qua mental cause (...)
Recent discussions of mental causation have focused on three principles: (1) Mental properties are (sometimes) causally relevant to physical effects; (2) mental properties are not physical properties; (3) every physical event has in its causal history only physical events and physical properties. Since these principles seem to be inconsistent, solutions have focused on rejecting one or more of them. But I argue that, in spite of appearances, (1)–(3) are not inconsistent. The reason is that 'properties' is used in different senses (...)
In my reading list
| Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: jstor.org blackwell-synergy.com ingentaconnect.com | Scholar | More..
| | Other links: jstor.org blackwell-synergy.com ingentaconnect.com | Scholar | More.. The paper defends Functionalism against the charge that it would make mental properties inefficacious. It outlines two ways of formulating the doctrine that mental properties are Functional properties and shows that both allow mental properties to be efficacious. The first (Lewis) approach takes functional properties to be the occupants of causal roles. Block [1990] has argued that mental properties should not be characterized in this way because it would make them properties of the ?implementing science?, e. g. neuroscience. I show (...)
In my reading list
| Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: jstor.org bjps.oxfordjournals.org bjps.oupjournals.org | Scholar | More..
| | Other links: jstor.org bjps.oxfordjournals.org bjps.oupjournals.org | Scholar | More.. Consider an ontological scheme that features qualia as irreducible properties of the universe, alongside the usual inventory of sparse physical properties identified by a penultimate physics. We have property dualism: both mental and physical properties are sui generis. And we think we know exactly where in philosophical space to locate such a view -- it is distinct from substance dualism. For many contemporary property dualists are highly critical of substance dualism, claiming instead that while mental and physical properties are distinct, (...)
No categories
In my reading list
| Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: sas.upenn.edu | Scholar | More..
| | Other links: sas.upenn.edu | Scholar | More.. Despite the fact that the nature of the properties of causation is rarely discussed within the mental causation debate, the implicit assumption is that they are universals as opposed to tropes. However, in recent literature on the problem of mental causation, a new solution has emerged which aims to address the problem by appealing to tropes. It is argued that if the properties of causation are tropes rather than universals, then a psychophysical reductionism can be advanced which does not face (...)
In my reading list
| Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: taylorandfrancis.metapress.com informaworld.com ingentaconnect.com | Scholar | More..
| | Other links: taylorandfrancis.metapress.com informaworld.com ingentaconnect.com | Scholar | More.. Despite the fact that Davidson's theory of the causal relata is crucial to his response to the problem of mental causation - that of anomalous monism - it is commonly overlooked within discussions of his position. Anomalous monism is accused of entailing property epiphenomenalism, but given Davidson's understanding of the causal relata, such accusations are wholly misguided. There are, I suggest, two different forms of property epiphenomenalism. The first understands the term 'property' in an ontological sense, the second in a (...)
In my reading list
| Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: informaworld.com ingentaconnect.com | Scholar | More..
| | Other links: informaworld.com ingentaconnect.com | Scholar | More.. It has been argued that nonreductive physicalism leads to epiphenominalism about mental properties: the view that mental events cannot cause behavioral effects by virtue of their mental properties. Recently, attempts have been made to develop accounts of causal relevance for irreducible properties to show that mental properties need not be epiphenomenal. In this paper, I primarily discuss the account of Frank Jackson and Philip Pettit. I show how it can be developed to meet several obvious objections and to capture our (...)
In my reading list
| Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: springerlink.com | Scholar | More..
| | Other links: springerlink.com | Scholar | More.. Representational theorists identify experiences’ phenomenal properties with their representational properties. Qualia theorists reject this identity, insisting that experiences’ phenomenal properties can come apart from and completely outrun their representational properties. Qualia theorists account for phenomenal properties in terms of “qualia,” intrinsic mental properties they allege experiences to instantiate. The debate between representational theorists and qualia theorists has focused on whether phenomenal properties really can come apart from and completely outrun representational properties. As a result, qualia theorists have failed (1) to (...)
_metaphysically transparent_: we do not arrive at a better understanding of the realm of facts that make such talk true or false when we abandon ordinary mental concepts in favor of naturalistic concepts—or, for that matter, in favor of supernaturalistic concepts, although _super_naturalism will not be my concern here. Rather, it is ordinary mental concepts themselves that provide the best framework for understanding the metaphysics of mind. In this essay, I will be concerned just with naïve realism about mental _properties_. (...)
If we take qualia to be tropes – no matter whether there are (universal) properties in the world – we can bring together the advantages of two horns of a dilemma. On the one side, we can make justice to Chalmers' motivations to postulate a robust ontology of qualia as we consider our sensory states as private, subjective, incorrigible by our beliefs and non-acquired in conceptual education. Qualia are abstract particulars that are unaffected by our conceptual tools. Our sensory concepts (...)
