Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    An inference to non-mental objects lying behind mental ob... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→We can have no warrant for believing in non-mental entities.

    An inference to non-mental objects lying behind mental objects could not be supported by enumerative induction, since no non-mental objects are ever observed behind mental objects.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    Mental objects(philosophy of mind and epistemology)
    Ideas, concepts, or things that exist only in our minds rather than in the physical world—like when you imagine a number or visualize a shape.
    Non-mental objects(as used in metaphysics and philosophy of mind)
    Physical things that exist in the world independently of anyone's thoughts or consciousness—like chairs, rocks, or trees.
    Supported by

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    (as used in arguments about knowledge and belief)
    Backed up or justified by evidence or valid reasoning—in other words, there's a good reason to believe it's true.
    enumerative induction(Contrasted with the method of hypothesis as a form of ampliative reasoning)
    A form of inference in which a general conclusion is drawn from repeated observations of particular cases within experience.
    inference(Nyāya epistemology)
    A component of epistemology in Nyāya philosophy; a veritable inference yields knowledge about the world and must have premises that are themselves known

    Connections

    1 topic

    Perception1 linked

    Related

    Mill rejects the method of hypothesis as an autonomous and valid form of reasoni...Such an inference would require the method of hypothesis — inference to an unobs...We are only ever directly familiar in experience with mental impressions.We can have no warrant for believing in non-mental entities.

    Similar

    Such an inference does not require treating the world as mind-dependen...77%An inference that does not distinguish the target phenomenon from an a...77%Rationality of belief does not require that the belief be grounded in ...77%Talk about minds and external objects beyond perceptions is explicable...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: mill
    View source passageHide passage
    Mill calls this insight “one of great weight and significance, which impresses a character on the whole mode of philosophical thinking of whoever receives it” (Examination, IX: 11). The doctrine ultimately pushes Mill towards Idealism. One might hold that, though we are only familiar in experience with mental impressions, we can nevertheless infer the existence of non-mental objects lying behind such mental objects. But such an inference could not be supported within experience by enumerative in

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective