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 Jaegwon Kim's causal exclusion argument shows that non-identical higher-level properties lack genuine causal efficacy, making token physicalism explanatorily vacuous.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Causal exclusion assumes a closed physical causal chain, but higher-level properties may constitute rather than duplicate physical causes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Multiple realizability suggests higher-level properties have distinct causal powers unavailable to any single physical realizer, preserving causal efficacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument conflates 'lacks independent causal efficacy' with 'is explanatorily vacuous'—higher-level explanations remain indispensable despite physical sufficiency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If higher-level properties are non-identical to physical properties, they cannot do causal work already done by their physical bases without causal overdetermination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Causal overdetermination (two sufficient causes for one effect) is metaphysically costly and should be avoided absent compelling evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Token physicalism denies higher-level properties identity with physical properties, making it vulnerable to causal exclusion without additional explanation.
      ?

      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.