A Limited Defense of Epiphenomenalism

Abstract

After showing that the causal exclusion argument provides substantial support for epiphenomenalism, I argue that this is a more defensible position than commonly assumed in four respects. First, epiphenomenalism can allow for the use of mental states in counterfactual dependency relations. Second, epiphenomenalism can preserve the intuitive observation that we experience our mental states as causal. Third, recent experiments in cognitive psychology challenge our traditional view of mental causation and are compatible with epiphenomenalism. Fourth, epiphenomenalism can offer a psychological account of why we experience our mental states as causal, when in fact they are not.