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 Objects causally produce representations in perceivers, and causes must be ontologically distinct from their effects.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Emergence shows effects can be genuinely novel yet ontologically continuous with causes—water's liquidity differs from H2O's properties but isn't separate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
In neural causation, brain states produce representations through internal organization, not external causation between distinct substances.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The requirement that causes be 'ontologically distinct' begs the question: identity at one level (physical) allows distinctness at another (functional).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Physical causation requires distinct relata: a billiard ball causes motion in another ball only because they are ontologically separate entities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Representations are intentional states with content; objects lack intentionality, so they must differ ontologically from representations they produce.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If causes and effects were identical, causal explanation would be uninformative—we'd only restate what already exists rather than explain change.
?
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.