The causal exclusion argument
Jaegwon Kim shows that antireductive physicalism cannot account for mental causation if we agree to two intuitive principles about causation, with the result that we must accept reductive physicalism in order to keep believing in mental causation. I shall defend this view. First, I will explain each concept used in the argument: reductive and antireductive physicalism, sufficient cause, mental causation, the causal closure principle, and the causal exclusion principle. My discussion on mental causation is especially long to give reasons for believing in it. Then, I will lay out Kim’s causal exclusion argument based on these concepts, giving reasons for the antireductive physicalist to agree with his assumptions and principles. The point is that the antireductive physicalist cannot refute them in a satisfactory manner, and so she must let go of at least one of the beliefs she should be inclined to keep.