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 triangulation argument fails to establish that genuine thought requires interaction with other minded beings

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Davidson's argument requires that the 'others' with whom one triangulates be genuine minded beings
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Thought would be possible even if the others with whom one triangulated were nothing but robots or automata
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's private language argument shows that normative standards for meaning require only behavioral regularities, not inner mental states in others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If behavioral dispositions suffice to ground semantic norms, triangulation with functional systems—not genuinely minded beings—establishes objective reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Davidson's own externalism about content entails that causal-historical relations to the environment, not the mentality of interlocutors, fixes thought content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dretske's informational semantics grounds intentional content in reliable causal covariation with environmental features, requiring no intersubjective confirmation from minded others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If solitary organisms can develop tracking mechanisms that reliably discriminate stimuli—as Dretske argues—genuine representational content arises without triangulation at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Davidson's triangulation argument thus establishes a sufficient but not necessary condition for thought, leaving the core claim about genuine minds undefended.
      ?

      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.