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 plausibility of interactionism is an empirical matter

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.