Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Narrow functional role alone cannot distinguish Twin Earth water-thoughts from Earth water-thoughts, as Putnam's 1975 argument demonstrates.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Narrow functional roles may incorporate historical-counterfactual dispositions about how systems would respond to varied external inputs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Even internally identical agents can instantiate different functional roles if roles are defined relationally to actual vs. counterfactual environments.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Putnam's argument shows content externalism is true, but doesn't prove narrow functionalism is false—only that narrow properties don't exhaust thought individuation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Narrow functional roles are defined by internal computational relations alone, independent of external environment or causal history.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Twin Earth and Earth are molecularly identical internally, so their residents have identical narrow functional roles for any mental state.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If thoughts differed despite identical narrow roles, content would depend on external factors beyond functional organization itself.
?
How convincing is this?
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.