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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that If physicalism is true and S summarizes the total nature of the world, then S# is already implicitly included in S, making the proposition S# merely an expansion of S rather than an independent claim.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Phenomenal concepts like 'what it is like to see red' are not reducible to functional or physical concepts, even given complete physical knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If phenomenal concepts are irreducible, S# describing qualia introduces genuinely new content not derivable from S by logical expansion alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Chalmers' conceivability of philosophical zombies demonstrates that S can be true while S# remains epistemically independent, undermining the claim of mere expansion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Jackson's Mary thought experiment shows that a complete physical description S leaves out experiential knowledge, suggesting S# is not implicit in S.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Propositional completeness of S does not entail cognitive or epistemic completeness, as Levine's explanatory gap argument demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Physicalism holds that the physical facts exhaust all facts about the world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.S is a complete physical description of the world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If S is complete, any further proposition S# that follows from the physical facts is already implicit in S.
      ?

      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.