Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A truth-maker theory grounded purely in mental existence cannot account for why logical predications constrain inference across minds.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Logical constraints could be grounded in shared cognitive structures or evolutionary-instilled inference patterns, not mind-independent entities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Cross-mind logical agreement doesn't require non-mental truth-makers; intersubjective consensus through communication explains constraint-sharing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Mental truth-makers can include abstract mental contents (propositions, concepts) that are shareable and constraint-bearing across different minds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If truth-makers are purely mental, logical laws would vary with individual minds, making cross-mind inference coordination impossible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Shared logical constraints across minds require a mind-independent ground, not reducible to private mental states or experiences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Mental-only truth-makers cannot explain why 'A and not-A' is necessarily false for all rational agents simultaneously.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.