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 The absence of intrinsic content in some elements of the Otto+ notebook system does not preclude the system from counting as cognitive

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Brains are paradigmatic cognitive systems
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Not all activity occurring in a brain involves states or processes with intrinsic content
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Adams and Aizawa's criterion requires clarification of how much intrinsic content a system must have to qualify as cognitive
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Cognitive systems are individuated by their functional organization and causal roles, not by the intrinsic properties of their constituents (Putnam 1967).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Otto's notebook plays the same functional causal role in guiding behavior as hippocampal memory traces play in neurotypical agents (Clark & Chalmers 1998).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If functional equivalence suffices for mental state attribution across silicon and carbon substrates, it suffices across neural and extracranial substrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Neuroscientific evidence shows that synaptic weights and dendritic potentials—paradigmatically cognitive elements—lack intrinsic representational content and acquire it only through their causal-systemic relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Adams and Aizawa's intrinsic content criterion, applied consistently, would disqualify acknowledged neural components of cognition, rendering the criterion self-undermining as a demarcation principle.
      ?

      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.