Jing Zhu
University of Waterloo
In this paper, I challenge the causal approach to understanding mental action by developing a pair of cases, both relevant to mental control. Central to the first case is the phenomenon of the ironic effects of mental control: our attempts at exercising control over our own minds can ironically undermine the intended mental control itself. Central to the second case is the seemingly paradoxical notion of “passive mental action”. These two cases indicate that the mental antecedents of the right kind specified by a causal theory of action are neither causally sufficient nor necessary to produce and control intentional mental action. This suggests that causalism may not be an adequate approach to understanding mental action.