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
    Davidson's considered position rejects the possibility of... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Strict bridge laws of the form 'P1 ↔ M1' are impossible.

    Davidson's considered position rejects the possibility of any strict laws in which mental predicates figure.

    Consciousness & Mind
    ?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

    Consciousness & Mind

    Related

    Bridge laws of the form 'P1 ↔ M1' are strict laws in which mental predicates fig...Bridge laws of this form are the basis of type-identity theories of mind.Strict bridge laws of the form 'P1 ↔ M1' are impossible.

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Consciousness & Mind
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Therefore, mental concepts cannot figure in strict laws.84%Bridge laws of the form 'P1 ↔ M1' are strict laws in which mental pred...82%The only potentially true and strict laws in which psychological predi...81%Hume's position rejects the existence of mental substances (human or d...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: anomalous-monism
    View source passageHide passage
    Mental anomalism, as initially formulated by Davidson, holds that there can be no strict laws on the basis of which mental events can be predicted and explained (Davidson 1970, 208). It is thus restricted to ruling out strict laws of succession with mental predicates occurring in the consequent—laws such as ‘P1 → M1’, ‘(M1 & P1) → M2’, or ‘M1 → M2’. It thus denies that the occurrence of particular mental events such as coming to believe or intend something, or intentionally acting in some wa

    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