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 interaction principle does not assume monism

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The interaction principle presupposes that mental and physical events share a causal-nomological framework, which already implies ontological continuity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ontological continuity between mental and physical relata is a distinctly monist commitment, not a metaphysically neutral starting point.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Thus the interaction principle smuggles in monism by requiring that causally related events belong to a single ontological order.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Jaegwon Kim argues that Davidson's causal relata are individuated by their physical descriptions, embedding a physical ontology into the principle's structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A principle whose application conditions presuppose physical token-identity cannot be treated as neutral between dualist and monist interpretations of mind-body causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Davidson is attempting to derive monism from the interaction principle and other principles
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Principles used to derive monism must themselves be neutral about the metaphysics of mind
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Assuming the conclusion (monism) in a premise would be circular reasoning
      ?

      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.