{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025086505190311418, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007785467128027681, 'mean_word_length': 5.154255319148936, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Physicalism, Supervenience, and Dependence: A Reply to Campbell

1. In a recent article in this journal, Neil Campbell has argued that certain problems with the doctrine of psycho-physical supervenience can be overcome if supervenience is viewed as a relation between predicates rather than as a relation between properties. Campbell suggests that, when properly understood, this predicate version of supervenience "expresses a form of psycho-physical dependence that might be useful to those who wish to argue for a supervenience-based physicalism" (Campbell 2000, p. 314, n.7). My aim in this note is to indicate why I think we ought to resist this suggestion of Campbell's. First, I will argue quite generally that any appeal to a distinction between predicates and properties is irrelevant to issues concerning physicalism and supervenience. And, second, I will argue that Campbell's own predicate version of supervenience fails to capture a notion of dependence that physicalists are likely to find useful. The upshot is that viewing supervenience as a relation between predicates does not help in articulating a more plausible version of physicalism.