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 If nature merely 'ordains' that movements produce sensations, the explanatory work is done by an unexplained legislative act, not by any causal mechanism.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Fundamental laws of nature (gravity, electromagnetism) are themselves 'ordained' yet remain scientifically legitimate explanations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim assumes causal mechanisms exist between sensation and movement; perhaps psychophysical correlations are primitive facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Demanding a mechanism beyond the ordination risks infinite regress—what explains the mechanism itself?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Invoking 'ordination' without mechanism merely relabels ignorance rather than explaining the mind-body connection.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
True causal explanation requires specifying how physical events produce mental states, not just asserting they do.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Brute legislative facts exempt themselves from rational scrutiny in ways that mechanistic accounts do not.
?
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.