In this paper I will be providing an exegesis of epiphenomenalism and eliminativism. In his chapter, of his book Objects and Persons, Merricks's primary aim is to argues that a baseball has no causal powers and therefore we should not believe in its existence. His argument has three parts: first he defends the validity of the argument; then he begins to analyze his argument; finally, he concludes by arguing that the Overdetermination argument is the truth of eliminativism. I will object to Merricks view of believing in objects because we see them.
In his chapter, Merricks considers an argument of a baseball shattering a window. His argument is as follows:
(1) The baseball is irrelevant to the shattering of the window
(2) The atoms, arranged…show more content… However, if we look at Leibniz's Law it states that if two objects are the same then they must have the same properties. A baseball and the atoms that compose it do not have the same properties. A baseball is one, but the atoms are many. For this reason, the baseball and the atoms are not the same, this would mean that, the baseball has no causal power. The third part (3) can be counter by saying that even if baseballs did cause the window to shatter, the atoms did cause us to see baseballs and consequently to believe in baseballs. One can say that a humans ability to perceive an object is because of the light that is reflected by the atoms. The perception of the baseball is then because of a physical interaction and that the cause can be attributed to the collection of atoms. It is also what caused the window to shatter.
In his chapter he shows that the baseball can be separate from any other object that has any casual power. Merricks goes beyond and states distinction can be applied to all objects, that are of course non-living, and from this he says that all objects are epiphenomenal. Merricks wanted to show that there was a proper reason to go with epiphenomenalism although, his last part displayed that he did not cut off the reasons for believing in baseballs entirely. Merricks's other premises stat that baseballs
