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 Size-invariance arguments only neutralize spatial objections, leaving the substrate-dependence objection fully intact.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Both objections stem from the same deeper issue: whether abstract functional organization suffices for identity independent of particulars.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If size-invariance establishes that implementation details are irrelevant, it undermines substrate-dependence by the same logic and scope.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim illegitimately separates spatial from material properties when both are physical instantiation details of the same functional system.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Size-invariance shows physical dimensions don't matter to personal identity, but says nothing about whether *material composition* matters.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Substrate-dependence objections concern whether minds require specific physical stuff, a fundamentally different question than spatial scale.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Solving one problem doesn't solve another unless they share the same root cause, which spatial and substrate concerns demonstrably don't.
?
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.