If the move to psychophysical form 'P1 & M1 & M2 → M3' genuinely yields strict laws, this presupposes that mental predicates can appear in strict laws, undermining Davidson's own anomalism thesis.

?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 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Anomalism thesis(as used in philosophy of mind): Davidson's claim that mental events don't follow strict, predictable laws the way physical objects do—there are always exceptions and irregularities.
Davidson, Donald(as a key figure in philosophy of language and action theory): A 20th-century philosopher who developed influential theories about how language works, especially regarding actions and events.
Psychophysical(describing the relationship between objective measurement and subjective experience): Relating to the connection between physical things in the world (like sound waves) and how our minds experience them (like hearing loudness).
The ampersand (&) symbol(as used in formal logic notation): This means 'and'—it connects multiple ideas or conditions that are all true at the same time.
The arrow (→) symbol(as used in formal logic notation): In logic, this means 'if...then' or 'implies'—it shows that one thing leads to or causes another.
mental predicates(the main subject being analyzed in the statement): Words or phrases we use to describe mental states, like 'believes,' 'desires,' 'feels happy,' or 'is conscious.'
strict laws(Philosophy of causation and Davidson's anomalous monism): True predictive laws in the literal sense, as opposed to approximate or ceteris paribus laws

2 topics