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
    Any explanation of consciousness that proceeds from physi... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Any explanation of consciousness that proceeds from physical or neural premises requires bridge principles connecting physical/neural facts with facts about consciousness

    Consciousness & Mind
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.As a matter of logic, one needs bridge principles to connect propositions about consciousness with propositions that do not mention consciousness
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Physical or neural facts do not inherently mention consciousness
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russellian monism, advanced by Chalmers and Strawson, holds that phenomenal properties constitute the intrinsic categorical bases of physical dispositional properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If consciousness is among the intrinsic grounds of the physical, then physical descriptions already implicitly quantify over phenomenal facts, dissolving the logical gap the argument presupposes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument's P2 assumes a completed, self-standing physical ontology, but structural-causal physics leaves intrinsic natures open — an assumption Bertrand Russell's 1927 Analysis of Matter explicitly challenged.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Type identity theory holds that mental state types are identical to brain state types, making bridge principles redundant rather than explanatorily necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'pain' just is 'C-fiber firing,' no connective principle bridges them — they name the same fact, as Place and Smart argued against Nagel's explanatory gap.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Consciousness & Mind

    Related

    As a matter of logic, one needs bridge principles to connect propositions about ...If 'pain' just is 'C-fiber firing,' no connective principle bridges them — they ...If consciousness is among the intrinsic grounds of the physical, then physical d...Physical or neural facts do not inherently mention consciousness
    +3 moreShow less
    Russellian monism, advanced by Chalmers and Strawson, holds that phenomenal prop...The argument's P2 assumes a completed, self-standing physical ontology, but stru...Type identity theory holds that mental state types are identical to brain state ...

    Similar

    As a matter of logic, one needs bridge principles to connect propositi...86%Physical or neural facts do not inherently mention consciousness82%If a complete physical account of the brain fails to capture all facts...82%Because consciousness is constituted by the very quiddities that groun...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: consciousness
    View source passageHide passage
    Criteria of explanation. The third key parameter is how one defines the criterion for a successful explanation. One might require that the explanandum be a priori deducible from the explanans, although it is controversial whether this is either a necessary or a sufficient criterion for explaining consciousness (Jackson 1993). Its sufficiency will depend in part on the nature of the premises from which the deduction proceeds. As a matter of logic, one will need some bridge principles to connect p
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit