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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Non-reductive physicalism is incoherent

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

    Reasons For

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42