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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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