Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Functionalist accounts (Putnam, Lewis) define mental states by causal-functional roles specifiable without prior mentalistic vocabulary.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Inverted qualia and absent qualia scenarios show functional identity doesn't guarantee identical phenomenal experience or consciousness itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Defining mental states purely functionally presupposes we know which causal relations matter—but this intuitive selection seems to require prior mentalistic understanding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The 'Chinese Room' problem suggests systems with identical functional organization may lack genuine intentionality or understanding that mental states possess.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Mental states are multiply realizable across different physical substrates, suggesting identity with abstract functional roles rather than physical properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
We can specify pain's causal role (stimulus→state→behavior) without presupposing 'pain' exists, using only input-output descriptions and internal transitions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Functionalism explains mental causation: mental states cause behavior precisely because they occupy functional roles in causal networks.
?
How convincing is this?
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.