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
    Non-reductive physicalism is incoherent — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Non-reductive physicalism is incoherent

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If mental properties are genuinely distinct from physical properties, they cannot be causally efficacious without violating the causal closure of the physical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Epiphenomenalism follows necessarily if mental properties are non-identical to physical properties yet the physical domain is causally closed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A physicalism that entails epiphenomenalism about the mental contradicts its own commitment to mental states being part of physical reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Supervenience, as Jaegwon Kim argued, cannot ground genuine ontological distinctness while preserving downward mental causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a credible account of mental causation, non-reductive physicalism collapses into either reductionism or substance dualism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • Any view that aims to be both non-reductive and physicalist faces a coherence problem
      ?

      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 & Mind

    Related

    A physicalism that entails epiphenomenalism about the mental contradicts its own...Any view that aims to be both non-reductive and physicalist faces a coherence pr...Epiphenomenalism follows necessarily if mental properties are non-identical to p...If mental properties are genuinely distinct from physical properties, they canno...
    +2 moreShow less
    Supervenience, as Jaegwon Kim argued, cannot ground genuine ontological distinct...Without a credible account of mental causation, non-reductive physicalism collap...

    Similar

    Non-reductive physicalism denies that conceptual tools appropriate for...84%Supervenience is required for minimal physicalism, whether the physica...83%Any view that aims to be both non-reductive and physicalist faces a co...82%Functionalism best suits non-reductive physicalism81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: consciousness
    View source passageHide passage
    Nonetheless our deductive inability is not seen as cause for ontological misgivings; there is no “money-matter” problem. All that we require is some general and less than deductive understanding of how economic properties and relations might be underlain by physical ones. Thus one might opt for a similar criterion for interpreting the How question and for what counts as explaining how consciousness might be caused or realized by nonconscious items. However, some critics, such as Kim (1987), have
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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