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
    In the case of our experience of ourselves, we do not ide... — Carmelics
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The argument that imagination is not a safe guide to possibility cannot apply in the mind-body case.

    In the case of our experience of ourselves, we do not identify ourselves merely by superficial stereotypes.

    Consciousness & MindPersonal Identity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Personal IdentityConsciousness & Mind

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility3 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Personal Identity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    In cases involving a posteriori necessities (such as identity discoveries), we a...The argument that imagination is not a safe guide to possibility cannot apply in...Therefore, the source of error that undermines imagination as a guide to possibi...

    Similar

    Proprioceptive experiences suffice to justify bodily self-ascriptions ...75%Thought cannot be separated from the empirical and historical unthough...74%We are conscious of our diverse experiences as unified and all our own...74%In cases involving a posteriori necessities (such as identity discover...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: dualism
    View source passageHide passage
    A major rationale of those who think that imagination is not a safe indication of possibility, even when such possibility is not eliminable a priori, is that we can imagine that a posteriori necessities might be false – for example, that Hesperus might not be identical to Phosphorus. But if Kripke is correct, that is not a real possibility. Another way of putting this point is that there are many epistemic possibilities which are imaginable because they are epistemic possibilities, but which are

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective