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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    On the simplest account, a thing is mind-dependent if it ... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The simplest account of mind-dependence — that a thing is mind-dependent if it would not have existed without minds — is inadequate for the intended metaphysical notion.

    On the simplest account, a thing is mind-dependent if it would not or could not have existed if minds had not existed.

    Modality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Modality & Possibility

    Related

    Philosophers who employ the notion of mind-dependence do not intend tables and c...Tables and chairs would not have existed without minds (since minds causally pro...The simplest account of mind-dependence — that a thing is mind-dependent if it w...Therefore the simplest account entails that tables and chairs are mind-dependent...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    The simplest account of mind-dependence — that a thing is mind-depende...93%The first account of mind-dependence — requiring the object to be the ...84%If the world is constituted by mind-dependent conditions, then the str...84%A more generous second account of mind-dependence — that an object exi...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: abstract-objects
    View source passageHide passage
    Here the first challenge is to say what it means for a thing to be ‘non-mental’, or as we more commonly say, ‘mind-independent’. The simplest approach is to say that a thing depends on the mind when it would not (or could not) have existed if minds had not existed. But this entails that tables and chairs are mind-dependent, and that is not what philosophers who employ this notion have in mind. To call an object ‘mind-dependent’ in a metaphysical context is to suggest that it somehow owes its exi

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective