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 Davidson's own reliance on supervenience presupposes a systematic covariance that implicitly demands the kind of identifications AM claims to avoid.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Supervenience permits correlation without identity; B-properties can depend on A-properties without reducing to or being identified with them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Systematic covariance describes dependency relationships, not metaphysical identifications; AM explicitly allows this distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Davidson's view avoids mental-physical identity while accepting psychophysical supervenience; this is a coherent position, not an implicit contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Supervenience requires that identical physical states always produce identical mental states, establishing systematic covariance patterns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Systematic covariance presupposes reliable mappings between mental and physical properties, implicitly identifying them as correlated pairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Anomalous Monism denies such identity relations, making supervenience logically incoherent as its foundational commitment.
      ?

      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.