Abstract

The causal exclusion argument against the causal efficacy of non-reducible mental properties relies on a causal closure principle for the physical domain, and on a causal exclusion principle ruling out systematic causal overdetermination. The notion of causal sufficiency is typically used in formulating both these principles. I argue that the causal exclusion principle has to be substantially revised in light of counterexamples where causal sufficiency is preserved among closely related cause candidates. This crucially affects the causal exclusion argument, and I specify which among several versions of the causal closure principle are compatible with the causal efficacy of mental properties.