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
    Strict lawlike relations between the mental and the physi... — Carmelics
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Strict lawlike relations between the mental and the physical are impossible.

    Causation
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.It is built into our conception of rationality that our own particular grasp of rationality may be mistaken on any given occasion and is also inherently limited.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No statement of psychological or psychophysical generalizations could exhaust, and therefore explain, our conception of rationality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The concept of rationality does not simply consist in one's conception, at any given time, of rationality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Eliminative materialists like Churchland argue that folk psychological concepts like rationality will be replaced by precise neurophysiological descriptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If mental vocabulary is ultimately eliminable in favor of physical vocabulary, the alleged incommensurability between mental and physical descriptions dissolves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The impossibility of strict psychophysical laws reflects only our current conceptual limitations, not an in-principle metaphysical barrier.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Functionalists like Lewis and Armstrong hold that mental states are defined by their causal-functional roles, which are multiply realizable but nonetheless lawfully specifiable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If mental state types are identified with functional roles rather than intrinsic phenomenal properties, bridge laws connecting functional mental kinds to physical kinds become nomologically tractable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Davidson's argument from the normativity of rationality conflates the epistemic conditions for mental state attribution with the ontological conditions for psychophysical law-hood.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Consciousness & MindCausation

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge2 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Davidson's argument from the normativity of rationality conflates the epistemic ...Eliminative materialists like Churchland argue that folk psychological concepts ...Functionalists like Lewis and Armstrong hold that mental states are defined by t...If mental state types are identified with functional roles rather than intrinsic...
    +6 moreShow less
    If mental vocabulary is ultimately eliminable in favor of physical vocabulary, t...If the concept of rationality cannot be captured in terms of the actual goings o...It is built into our conception of rationality that our own particular grasp of ...

    Similar

    Type-identity between mental and physical properties or kinds is impos...83%McDowell's reasoning fails to explain why psychology and physics canno...81%Strict physical laws cannot uniquely single out particular mental even...81%Therefore, mental concepts cannot figure in strict laws.81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: anomalous-monism
    View source passageHide passage
    One might understand the reasoning here in the following way: because it is built into our conception of rationality that our own particular grasp of rationality may be mistaken on any given occasion and is also inherently limited, no statement of psychological or psychophysical generalizations could exhaust, and therefore explain, our conception of rationality. If the concept of rationality does not simply consist in one’s conception, at any given time, of rationality, then it cannot be capture
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    No statement of psychological or psychophysical generalizations could exhaust, a...
    The concept of rationality does not simply consist in one's conception, at any g...
    The impossibility of strict psychophysical laws reflects only our current concep...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit