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
    Eliminative materialists like Churchland argue that 'thin... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Thinking must be real and must have being

    Eliminative materialists like Churchland argue that 'thinking' as a folk-psychological category may not correspond to any real natural kind.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Folk psychology uses 'thinking' inconsistently across contexts, suggesting it lacks the unified reference required of natural kinds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Neuroscience reveals no unified brain mechanism corresponding to folk 'thinking'—only diverse, distributed processes without natural boundaries.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Historical precedent shows folk categories (phlogiston, vital essence) were eliminated when science matured, suggesting 'thinking' may follow suit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Even if 'thinking' has no unified neural substrate, it may pick out a real functional property that systematically explains and predicts behavior.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The absence of a single boundary doesn't eliminate a kind—species, weather systems, and diseases lack sharp definitions yet remain scientifically legitimate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Eliminativism conflates 'folk concepts are imprecise' with 'the phenomenon itself doesn't exist,' but imprecision allows conceptual refinement, not elimination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedConsciousness & Mind1 linked

    Related

    Eliminativism conflates 'folk concepts are imprecise' with 'the phenomenon itsel...Even if 'thinking' has no unified neural substrate, it may pick out a real funct...Folk psychology uses 'thinking' inconsistently across contexts, suggesting it la...Historical precedent shows folk categories (phlogiston, vital essence) were elim...
    +3 moreShow less
    Neuroscience reveals no unified brain mechanism corresponding to folk 'thinking'...The absence of a single boundary doesn't eliminate a kind—species, weather syste...Thinking must be real and must have being

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit