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 Physicalism requires that all facts supervene on physical facts characterized by physics, which makes no reference to intrinsic experiential properties.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The qualitative character of experience (redness, painfulness) seems absent from any third-person physical description, however complete.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Supervenience allows that experiences could differ while physics remains identical; physics may be insufficient, not merely incomplete.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Physics deliberately abstracts away from intrinsic properties; this methodological choice doesn't prove intrinsic experiences lack reality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Physics describes all causal powers in the universe; if experience had distinct causal effects, physics would need to reference it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Experience supervenes on neural states; identical neural configurations produce identical experiences, supporting physical sufficiency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Positing non-physical experiential properties violates parsimony and creates unsolvable interaction problems between mental and physical.
?
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.