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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Higher-level functions in human beings are ontologically dependent on lower-level processes but are not reducible to them.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Every purported 'emergent' property of higher levels has, historically, yielded to lower-level mechanistic explanation upon sufficient scientific progress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The explanatory gap between levels reflects only current ignorance, not a genuine ontological discontinuity in nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If ontological irreducibility cannot be distinguished in principle from mere epistemic limitation, the claim collapses into a promissory mysterianism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kim's causal exclusion argument establishes that if lower-level physical processes are causally sufficient for any event, higher-level properties are causally redundant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ontological dependence without reducibility leaves higher-level properties epiphenomenal, unable to do genuine causal work in the world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A stratified ontology that strips higher levels of causal efficacy cannot coherently explain why those levels matter at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Human beings exhibit physical, biological, mental, and spiritual features that reflect the stratified structure of reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ontological dependence of higher functions on lower processes is compatible with the autonomy and novelty of those higher functions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Nonreductive naturalism acknowledges dependence without collapsing higher levels into lower ones.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42