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 Chalmers' positive conceivability test—where no contradiction emerges after ideal rational reflection—is a reliable guide to metaphysical possibility.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Conceivability can diverge from possibility: we might ideally conceive zombies, yet they're metaphysically impossible if physicalism holds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Our rational capacities evolved for practical survival, not metaphysical truth-tracking, so conceivability may systematically mislead us.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Complex scenarios (quantum entanglement, consciousness) seem conceivable but remain metaphysically opaque to human rational reflection.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If ideal rational reflection cannot find contradictions, no logical laws are violated, suggesting genuine metaphysical possibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
We lack direct access to metaphysical possibility independent of conceivability, making rational conceivability our best epistemic guide.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This test successfully distinguishes impossible scenarios (married bachelor) from possible ones (water as XYZ), validating its reliability.
?
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.