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 framework requires mental events to instantiat... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Davidson's anomalous monism cannot move from 'mental events must instantiate non-mental strict law properties' to 'those properties must be physical' without assuming causal closure of the physical

    Davidson's framework requires mental events to instantiate non-mental, strict law properties

    CausationConsciousness & 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 & MindCausation

    Related

    Causal closure of the physical is not independently derived within Davidson's ow...Davidson's anomalous monism cannot move from 'mental events must instantiate non...The further claim that those strict law properties must be physical requires an ...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Consciousness & Mind
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Therefore, causally interacting mental events must instantiate some no...89%Therefore, the non-mental property that causally interacting mental ev...82%Davidson's anomalous monism cannot move from 'mental events must insta...81%Causally interacting mental events must instantiate some strict law pr...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: anomalous-monism
    View source passageHide passage
    There are serious problems with the assumption of causal closure of the physical in Davidson’s framework (for discussion, see the supplement on Causal Closure of the Physical in the Argument for Anomalous Monism). It is difficult, however, to see how Davidson can move from the claim that mental events must instantiate non-mental, strict law properties to the claim that these properties must be physical without assuming closure. Why assume that only ‘physical’ properties are nomic? This raises

    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