 Many writers have held that Kim-style exclusion arguments depend on an understanding of causation for which there are preferable alternatives. (See, e.g., Woodward, 2008, 2017; Kroedel, 2016; Beebee, 2017.) This kind of response is sometimes put forward as providing a more correct account of causation. Other writers allow that exclusion arguments can succeed if causation is understood as productive (or ‘oomphy’) causation, but hold that there are other “conceptions of causation” (Beebee, 2017) on which it remains acceptable to say that our mental states cause our behavior. Epiphenomenalists may concede that there is some such sense, but still think their view is vindicated if all the productive causation is provided by the physical activities of our brains. 