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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Russellian monism offers an elegant, unified solution to both the problem of grounding spatiotemporal structure and the problem of integrating consciousness into physical causation.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Structural coherence arguments (Lewis 1972, Hawthorne 2001) establish that purely qualitative quiddities are causally and nomologically inert by definition, since causal roles are fully captured by structural-dispositional properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If quiddities are causally inert, they cannot ground spatiotemporal structure in any explanatorily non-trivial sense, making the proposed unification vacuous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Russellian monism thus conflates the epistemic gap between structural descriptions and their categorical basis with a genuine ontological grounding relation that quiddities cannot discharge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The 'combination problem' (Chalmers 2010, Goff 2017) shows no principled account explains how micro-level protophenomenal properties combine into unified macro-consciousness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A solution that merely relocates the hard problem from physics to combination fails the parsimony standard it claims to satisfy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Physics describes spatiotemporal structure but requires a categorical foundation for that structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Consciousness must be integrated into physical causation, which standard physicalism struggles to explain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.(Proto)phenomenal quiddities provide the requisite categorical foundation for spatiotemporal structure.
      ?

      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.