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
    Mind could influence the physical world without violating... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Mind could influence the physical world without violating conservation of energy

    Causation
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Conservation of energy requires that the total quantity of energy remain constant
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It may be possible for mind to influence the distribution of energy without altering its total quantity
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Any redistribution of energy by a non-physical mind requires a causal mechanism, and all known causal mechanisms involve energy transfer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Huxley's epiphenomenalist tradition shows that positing causally efficacious mental redirection without physical substrate generates an explanatory regress, not a solution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The conservation laws in physics are closed-system principles: inserting a non-physical redirector reopens the system and effectively violates closure, not merely redistribution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quantum indeterminacy-based deflection arguments, like those Stapp advances, require that mental intervention select among outcomes, which alters probability distributions and constitutes measurable physical influence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If mental influence is genuinely undetectable and leaves energy distributions physically identical, it becomes empirically vacuous and explanatorily idle by the standards Occam's razor demands.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Consciousness & MindCausation

    Related

    Any redistribution of energy by a non-physical mind requires a causal mechanism,...Conservation of energy requires that the total quantity of energy remain constan...Huxley's epiphenomenalist tradition shows that positing causally efficacious men...If mental influence is genuinely undetectable and leaves energy distributions ph...
    +3 moreShow less
    It may be possible for mind to influence the distribution of energy without alte...Quantum indeterminacy-based deflection arguments, like those Stapp advances, req...The conservation laws in physics are closed-system principles: inserting a non-p...

    Similar

    If causal power flowed in and out of the physical system, energy would...81%It may be possible for mind to influence the distribution of energy wi...79%Interactionism does not violate the conservation of energy principle77%Mach's Principle requires that only mass-energy can influence inertia75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: dualism
    View source passageHide passage
    Even if there is no objection in principle, there appears to be a conflict between interactionism and some basic principles of physical science. For example, if causal power was flowing in and out of the physical system, energy would not be conserved, and the conservation of energy is a fundamental scientific law. Various responses have been made to this. One suggestion is that it might be possible for mind to influence the distribution of energy, without altering its quantity. (See Averill and
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit