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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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