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 Simon's account therefore conflates the causal trigger of intellection with the subject of intellection, undermining personal cognitive responsibility.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The trigger-subject distinction may be artificial; causation often involves agent-internal processes that blur the boundary between external cause and responsible subject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Responsibility doesn't require independence from causal triggers—it requires agents to integrate external inputs through their own cognitive capacities responsibly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Simon's view might correctly show that intellection always requires initiating conditions, without this undermining responsibility for how agents process those conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Causal triggers (external stimuli) and subjects (agents) are metaphysically distinct categories that should not be conflated in responsibility frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If what triggers thinking is identical to who thinks, then agents cannot be held accountable for thoughts arising from external causes beyond their control.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Personal cognitive responsibility requires that the agent (subject) be distinguishable from whatever merely initiates cognitive processes.
      ?

      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.