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
    Global supervenience fails to entail strong individual su... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Global supervenience fails to entail strong individual supervenience

    Modality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Kim conceded that global supervenience fails to entail strong supervenience
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Petrie's example demonstrates a case where global supervenience holds but strong supervenience does not
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Petrie's example relies on a non-standard possible worlds semantics that privileges world-level holism over property instantiation at individuals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If supervenience relations are evaluated under Lewisian modal realism, the distinction between global and strong supervenience collapses for natural properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the alleged counterexample exploits a framework-dependent artifact rather than a genuine modal gap between global and strong supervenience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.McLaughlin argued that global supervenience, properly formulated with indiscernibility conditions, does entail strong supervenience for physically closed domains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kim's concession was directed at a weaker formulation of global supervenience that does not require preservation of all relational properties across worlds.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Personal IdentityModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    If supervenience relations are evaluated under Lewisian modal realism, the disti...Kim conceded that global supervenience fails to entail strong supervenienceKim's concession was directed at a weaker formulation of global supervenience th...McLaughlin argued that global supervenience, properly formulated with indiscerni...
    +3 moreShow less
    Petrie's example demonstrates a case where global supervenience holds but strong...Petrie's example relies on a non-standard possible worlds semantics that privile...Therefore, the alleged counterexample exploits a framework-dependent artifact ra...

    Similar

    Global supervenience fails to entail weak individual supervenience96%Global supervenience and strong individual supervenience are not equiv...93%Global supervenience does not entail strong supervenience92%Strong individual supervenience entails strong global supervenience.90%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: supervenience
    View source passageHide passage
    In response, Kim conceded that global supervenience fails to entail strong supervenience (1987, 318), and went on to claim that Petrie’s example also shows that global supervenience fails to entail weak. Notice that w1 alone violates the weak supervenience of A on B, but also fails to be a counterexample to the global supervenience of A on B. Kim thus concluded that global supervenience fails to entail weak or strong individual supervenience.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit