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 Indicative signs, such as bodily motion as a sign of an unobservable soul, cannot be grounded in prior co-observation of sign and signified together, making experiential assurance from similar cases structurally impossible as their basis.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Co-observation isn't necessary for inference; we infer unobservable causes (genes, atoms, gravity) from observable effects without prior paired observation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bodily motion's reliable correlation with mental states can be established through consistent behavioral patterns without needing to observe the soul directly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument proves too much: it would block all causal inference to hidden entities, yet science successfully explains phenomena via unobservable mechanisms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.We can never directly observe souls, only bodily motions, so we lack the co-observation baseline needed to establish the sign-signified connection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Inductive inference from similar cases requires prior knowledge of the correlation, which is structurally unavailable for unobservables by definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without direct access to both relata simultaneously, analogical reasoning about souls from other minds commits us to an unjustified epistemic leap.
      ?

      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.