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
    Huxley, Mach, and the epiphenomenalist tradition argued t... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Interactionism does not violate the conservation of energy principle

    Huxley, Mach, and the epiphenomenalist tradition argued that conservation laws were precisely what forced the retreat from interactionism to epiphenomenalism in the 19th century.

    ?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.Energy conservation laws proved empirically robust in 19th-century physics, making causal gaps between mind and body physically problematic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Interactionism required mental causation to add energy to physical systems, violating conservation principles central to mechanistic science.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Epiphenomenalism logically resolves the tension by denying mental causation entirely, preserving both physics and the existence of consciousness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Many 19th-century philosophers adopted epiphenomenalism for conceptual clarity, not specifically because conservation laws forced this choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conservation laws apply to closed systems; consciousness could causally influence the brain without violating these laws if the system remains closed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates historical motivation with logical necessity—epiphenomenalism may have been adopted despite, not because of, conservation concerns.
      ?

      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

    Causation1 linkedConsciousness & Mind1 linked

    Related

    Conservation laws apply to closed systems; consciousness could causally influenc...Energy conservation laws proved empirically robust in 19th-century physics, maki...Epiphenomenalism logically resolves the tension by denying mental causation enti...Interactionism does not violate the conservation of energy principle
    +3 moreShow less
    Interactionism required mental causation to add energy to physical systems, viol...Many 19th-century philosophers adopted epiphenomenalism for conceptual clarity, ...The claim conflates historical motivation with logical necessity—epiphenomenalis...

    Details

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