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 thinking is identical to or supervenes on neural activity, then spatial properties of that activity are partly constitutive of thought.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Thoughts have content and meaning that remain constant across physically different neural implementations in different brains.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Neural activity has intrinsic spatial properties (location, distance, topology) that are causally efficacious in cognitive processing.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
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.