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
    Supervenience entails no explanatory connection: knowing ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Supervenience is too weak a notion to constitute reduction, even though supervenience is a necessary condition for reduction.

    Supervenience entails no explanatory connection: knowing B-facts fixes A-facts without explaining why or how, leaving the 'explanatory gap' fully intact.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Supervenience is purely a covariance relation: if A-facts necessitate B-facts, this describes dependence without explaining the underlying mechanism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The explanatory gap persists precisely because physical facts don't answer 'why consciousness feels like something' despite fixing all neural facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Knowing water's H2O composition doesn't explain why it quenches thirst—supervenience alone leaves functional 'how' questions unanswered.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Supervenience combined with reductive analysis (e.g., pain = C-fiber firing) does explain A-facts; the gap reflects conceptual confusion, not metaphysical failure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Explanatory demands vary by domain: supervenience suffices to explain why mental states track brain states without requiring bridge laws or special mechanisms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If B-facts fully determine A-facts, no additional 'explanatory connection' is coherently required; demanding more conflates explanation with intuitive satisfaction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedConsciousness & Mind1 linked

    Related

    Explanatory demands vary by domain: supervenience suffices to explain why mental...If B-facts fully determine A-facts, no additional 'explanatory connection' is co...Knowing water's H2O composition doesn't explain why it quenches thirst—superveni...Supervenience combined with reductive analysis (e.g., pain = C-fiber firing) doe...
    +3 moreShow less
    Supervenience is purely a covariance relation: if A-facts necessitate B-facts, t...Supervenience is too weak a notion to constitute reduction, even though superven...The explanatory gap persists precisely because physical facts don't answer 'why ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit