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 Kim's work on supervenience establishes that reductive dependence relations can be asymmetric and necessitating without being straightforwardly causal in the efficient sense.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If reduction relations are truly necessitating, explaining why they're not simply constitutive (and thus straightforwardly causal) remains unclear.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The asymmetry between levels may reflect our epistemic access rather than an objective metaphysical structure of dependence relations themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Denying mental causation to preserve physicalism may eliminate the very explanandum—genuine causal efficacy of higher-level properties—that needs explaining.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Supervenience relations hold necessarily (no variation without base variation) yet involve no temporal causal mechanism between levels.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mental properties depend asymmetrically on physical properties without being reducible to efficient causal powers of any single entity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kim's account preserves dependence without requiring downward causation, solving the exclusion problem by denying mental-physical causal competition.
      ?

      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.