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 Explanations of behavior in terms of desires are not always necessary or superior to explanations in terms of drives

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Plausible explanations of an agent's behavior in terms of desires can sometimes be replaced by equally good explanations in terms of drives
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Drives can be construed in terms of more basic mechanisms without ascribing representational content
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Homeostatic drive models (e.g., Hull's drive-reduction theory) successfully predict motivated behavior without positing propositional attitude content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Intentional desire-based explanations introduce a layer of representational complexity that violates parsimony when mechanistic drive accounts achieve equal predictive accuracy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Occam's razor in theory selection favors drive explanations that invoke fewer ontological commitments when empirical adequacy is held constant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Freud's and later Panksepp's affective neuroscience tradition demonstrates that subcortical drive systems generate directed behavior prior to and independent of cortical representational states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If behavior can be fully caused by non-representational affective drive states, desire-based folk-psychological explanations are post-hoc rationalizations rather than genuine causal accounts.
      ?

      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.