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
    The plausibility of interactionism is an empirical matter — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The plausibility of interactionism is an empirical matter

    CausationConsciousness & Mind
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If conditionality is accepted, interactionism is not ruled out a priori
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Only close investigation of the fine operation of the brain could settle whether non-physical causation occurs
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The conservation of energy is a well-confirmed physical law entailing that all causal work in closed systems is done by physical quantities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If non-physical causation introduced energy into physical systems, it would be detectable as systematic violations of conservation laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No such violations have been empirically detected, making non-physical causation already empirically disconfirmed, not merely uninvestigated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Conceptual analysis of causation, as developed by Davidson, requires cause and effect to fall under strict deterministic laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Anomalous monism shows that mental causation is efficacious only under physical descriptions, not mentalistic ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, whether non-physical causation occurs is settled by conceptual constraints on causation itself, not by fine-grained empirical neuroscience.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Consciousness & MindCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Anomalous monism shows that mental causation is efficacious only under physical ...Conceptual analysis of causation, as developed by Davidson, requires cause and e...If conditionality is accepted, interactionism is not ruled out a prioriIf non-physical causation introduced energy into physical systems, it would be d...
    +4 moreShow less
    No such violations have been empirically detected, making non-physical causation...Only close investigation of the fine operation of the brain could settle whether...The conservation of energy is a well-confirmed physical law entailing that all c...Therefore, whether non-physical causation occurs is settled by conceptual constr...

    Similar

    This encounter is not reducible to a purely formal or purely empirical...76%If conditionality is accepted, interactionism is not ruled out a prior...75%Particular empirical laws are determined in relation to actual percept...73%The interaction principle requires that mental events causally interac...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: dualism
    View source passageHide passage
    Even if there is no objection in principle, there appears to be a conflict between interactionism and some basic principles of physical science. For example, if causal power was flowing in and out of the physical system, energy would not be conserved, and the conservation of energy is a fundamental scientific law. Various responses have been made to this. One suggestion is that it might be possible for mind to influence the distribution of energy, without altering its quantity. (See Averill and
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit