Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The interaction principle presupposes that mental and physical events share a causal-nomological framework, which already implies ontological continuity.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Events can share causal relations while remaining ontologically distinct; causal interaction doesn't require substance continuity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Fundamental physics may admit genuinely distinct causal frameworks (quantum/classical) without implying ontological unity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The interaction principle could hold via bridging laws or emergence without presupposing the ontological continuity claim.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Causal efficacy requires that cause and effect operate under the same natural laws governing their domain.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If mental events causally affect physical events, they must participate in physical causal chains governed by natural laws.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Participation in a unified causal-nomological framework logically entails some form of ontological continuity between relata.
?
How convincing is this?
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.