Reblog: Problematical Property Dualism

 In the philosophy of mind, non-reductive materialism is a position taken by people who are convinced that there are non-material properties, yet still want to maintain a monistic ontology, while distancing themselves from idealism. Generally, this position entails a substance monism combined with property dualism. So, there is one kind of substance in which physical and mental properties are both instantiated. A brain would then be composed of a material substance which has both mental and physical properties.

This view is usually combined with the thesis that mental properties supervene onto physical properties, but are not reducible to physical properties. So, any substance S that has mental property Q will have physical property P; and it is necessarily the case that if  S has Q then is also has P. That is the general supervenience thesis held by non-reductive materialists who endorse property dualism.

There is a problem with this account of the mental, though. If there was a certain time in the past when there were no mental properties (a time before the existence of life complex enough to instantiate said properties), then there must be a time at which mental properties instantiated. It seems as though there’s literally a moment when mental properties didn’t exist, then they were ‘zapped’ into existence by whatever it was that instantiated the mental properties. It seems very implausible that such an account is true, given a monistic, materialist ontology. However, on substance dualism, the existence of non-material/non-physical properties like the ones endorsed by the property dualist is a plausible possibility. So, the moral of this story is that non-reductive materialism doesn’t seem as plausible as a substance dualism, given the existence of non-physical properties. If the materialist doesn’t find substance dualism plausible for the many reasons many philosophers of mind do, then the materialist may want to bite the bullet and give up his commitment to non-physical properties (unless he or she wishes to become a substance dualist).

My thoughts are re-printed below:

If I agreed that mental states had to “zap in” at some point in the past, then I would find this objection more appealing. That said, property dualism does not require that this occur. A more faithful property dualism would say, rather, that some form of “phenomenal character” existed at all points in the history of the universe, but this is not to say that it has to be recognizably “mental,” as we think of it today. The distinction between “physical” and “mental” is irrelevant to the discussion of property dualism—and philosophy of mind in general, I think, as everything mental is, so far as we can tell, necessarily physical is some way*—it is the distinction between objective and subjective that is most important. Each side of this more refined distinction has fundamentally different tools of explanation, and this is what I think of as a true property dualism.

*for support, I rely on a simple principle from Christof Koch: “No matter, never mind.”

via Problematical Property Dualism.

4 thoughts on “Reblog: Problematical Property Dualism

  1. By phenomenal character, are you indicating some sort of weak pansychism? Or do you mean the potential for p-conscious states is present in the physical makeup of the universe? I find your objection interesting, but I want to clarify to be sure I understand.

    • I would have to go with the former. I, presently, am keen on differentiating between intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics. The intrinsic side would be identified as the source of the phenomenal character, while the extrinsic side would be the source of the “physical realization” that we report on in Physics, Chemistry, or Biology. I’m not entirely convinced, myself, that this sort of weak panpsychism is actually true, but it seems at least not totally implausible or a priori false..

      (This may not be a “true” property dualism, I suppose, but it is nonetheless much closer to a “true” property dualism than any other term I can think of)

      • I’m quite sympathetic to pansychism, to be honest. Ever since studying Berkeley and some of his key arguments, I’m not entirely convinced that some of his main positions are all that false. I think in some sense if we take him seriously (yet want to be agnostic about god), we could posit a weak pansychism which accounts for the substance of objects existing external to us.

        But that aside, I’m still a bit unsure about something. Do you mean that the intrinsic character of the thing is its substance (which is phenomenal in nature), or is it some sort of secondary attribute which we don’t have direct access to, but is a property of a neutral underlying substance that “holds” both physical and mental properties?

  2. Almost assuredly the latter. This may make it seem like more of a neutral monism than a property dualism, but the distinction is unnecessary, I think. The underlying metaphysics may be a neutral monism, but our attempts to understand it must come through the lens of a weak dualism (as per the objective-subjective distinction made earlier).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s