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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Block and Fodor's inference from the conceptual coherence of the qualia inversion scenario to its possibility is questionable

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The move from conceptual coherence to possibility is not logically valid
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A proposition can be conceptually coherent yet metaphysically impossible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's work on necessary a posteriori truths shows conceptual coherence of 'water is not H2O' does not entail its possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Phenomenal concepts like 'inverted qualia' may pick out physical states rigidly, making inversion scenarios coherent but impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If phenomenal terms are rigid designators of functional-physical states, their apparent conceivability reflects epistemic, not metaphysical, gaps.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Chalmers' own two-dimensional semantics distinguishes primary from secondary intensions, allowing coherence without metaphysical possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Block and Fodor conflate primary-intension coherence with secondary-intension possibility, a distinction Chalmers' framework explicitly prohibits.
      ?

      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.