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
    The conceivability of disembodied minds may reflect epist... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The mind has no more than causal ontological dependence on the body (not logical or analytic dependence).

    The conceivability of disembodied minds may reflect epistemic gaps rather than genuine metaphysical possibility, undermining the conceivability argument's force.

    ?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.We cannot conceive of consciousness's neural basis despite centuries of neuroscience, suggesting conceivability reflects ignorance, not possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Historical examples show conceivable scenarios later proved impossible (e.g., perpetual motion); conceivability is an unreliable guide to metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If disembodied minds were genuinely possible, we'd expect more empirical evidence or theoretical explanation of how they causally interact with physics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic gaps exist in many domains yet some conceivable scenarios remain genuinely possible; the gap alone doesn't establish impossibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conceivability of disembodied minds is more robust than historical false positives—it survives rigorous philosophical scrutiny across centuries and cultures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument doesn't require disembodied minds to causally interact; conceivability only entails logical possibility, not causal efficacy.
      ?

      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

    Consciousness & Mind1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Conceivability of disembodied minds is more robust than historical false positiv...Epistemic gaps exist in many domains yet some conceivable scenarios remain genui...Historical examples show conceivable scenarios later proved impossible (e.g., pe...If disembodied minds were genuinely possible, we'd expect more empirical evidenc...
    +3 moreShow less
    The argument doesn't require disembodied minds to causally interact; conceivabil...The mind has no more than causal ontological dependence on the body (not logical...We cannot conceive of consciousness's neural basis despite centuries of neurosci...

    Details

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