Skip to content
PaperFren

Can you be a dualist and still believe in biological psychiatry?

Open paper intelligence

Rejecting dualism because the brain explains behaviour only defeats Descartes' version; a dualism about conscious experience alone fits comfortably with brain-based psychiatry.

Source

Dualism and its place in a philosophical structure for psychiatry

Maung HH · Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019

doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9841-2Read the full paper ↗9 citationscc by

Study at a glance

Design
Qualitative / archival — Conceptual argument in philosophy of mind and psychiatry, critiquing Kendler's rejection of dualism
N
No participants; purely philosophical analysis
Population
Claims about the mind–body problem in the biological psychiatry literature, especially Kendler's framework
Outcome
Thesis: a modern (Chalmers-style) dualism is compatible with biological psychiatry, and the hard problem need not worry psychiatrists

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

What they did

The author examines psychiatrist Kenneth Kendler's claim that psychiatry must declare dualism false. He uses Chalmers's distinction between the psychological concept of mind (causal roles in behaviour) and the phenomenal concept (what experience feels like), then contrasts Descartes' substance dualism with Chalmers's naturalistic dualism and tests both against Kim's causal exclusion argument.

What they found

Kendler is argued to slide between the two concepts of the mental, for example treating humiliation as both a causal state and a felt experience. Descartes' dualism loses to causal exclusion because an immaterial mind competes with sufficient brain causes, but Chalmers's view escapes because consciousness is metaphysically distinct yet lawfully tied to brain states. The author concludes that mapping symptoms to brain mechanisms is part of the 'easy' problem, so the hard problem of consciousness does not block psychiatric explanation or treatment.

The limits

What it doesn't show

The paper does not argue that dualism is true; it only argues that one form is compatible with biological psychiatry, and it leans on Chalmers's contested zombie-style reasoning. The escape from causal exclusion depends on List and Stoljar's reading of 'distinct', which not all philosophers accept, and it leaves open whether experience does any causal work. The critique focuses mainly on one author, Kendler, so it may not capture every psychiatrist's view.

Key terms

Substance dualism
Descartes' view that mind and body are two different kinds of thing that causally interact.
Naturalistic (property) dualism
Chalmers's view that conscious experience is a fundamental non-physical feature tied to physical states by psychophysical laws.
Psychological vs phenomenal concept of mind
The mind as whatever plays causal roles in producing behaviour, versus the mind as the felt, subjective quality of experience.
Causal exclusion problem
Kim's argument that if a physical cause is sufficient for an effect, nothing distinct from it can also cause that effect.
Hard problem of consciousness
The question of why physical processes are accompanied by subjective experience at all, as opposed to the 'easy' problems of explaining functions.

Flashcards

1 / 11

0 of 11 answers reviewed

Research intelligence for this paper

See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.

Open paper intelligence

Quiz yourself

1 / 5

Which form of dualism does the author say is compatible with biological psychiatry?

Common questions

Does this paper say psychiatry should become dualist?

No. It says psychiatry's scientific findings do not refute a modern form of dualism, so psychiatrists need not declare all dualism false.

Why does it matter whether depression is described psychologically or phenomenally?

Because explaining the causal state behind tearfulness and low activity is an 'easy' problem that neuroscience can tackle, whereas why it feels like something is a separate metaphysical question.

How is this like explaining angina?

Doctors explain chest pain by blood vessels and nerves without asking why it feels painful; the author says psychiatry can do the same.

More on Consciousness