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
    If thinking is identical to or supervenes on neural activ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Thinking cannot be fundamentally understood as a spatial process

    If thinking is identical to or supervenes on neural activity, then spatial properties of that activity are partly constitutive of thought.

    ?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.Neural activity has intrinsic spatial properties (location, distance, topology) that are causally efficacious in cognitive processing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a property is causally efficacious in producing a phenomenon, it is partly constitutive of that phenomenon's identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Spatial relationships between neural regions (e.g., connectivity patterns) functionally determine information integration and representational content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Thoughts have content and meaning that remain constant across physically different neural implementations in different brains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If spatial properties were partly constitutive of thought, identical thoughts could not exist in brains with different spatial architectures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Causal relevance of spatial properties to neural function does not entail those properties are constitutive of the thought itself.
      ?

      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

    1 topic

    Consciousness & Mind1 linked

    Related

    Causal relevance of spatial properties to neural function does not entail those ...If a property is causally efficacious in producing a phenomenon, it is partly co...If spatial properties were partly constitutive of thought, identical thoughts co...Neural activity has intrinsic spatial properties (location, distance, topology) ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Spatial relationships between neural regions (e.g., connectivity patterns) funct...Thinking cannot be fundamentally understood as a spatial processThoughts have content and meaning that remain constant across physically differe...

    Details

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