The prism analogy presupposes a structural match between the medium and the output, yet Leibniz and Hume both show that no spatial or physical property of a substrate can constitute or entail phenomenal properties.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Presupposes(as describing what Plantinga's argument takes for granted)
Assumes something to be true without proving it—like how an argument might presuppose that logic works, without first arguing that logic is valid.
Prism analogy(as used in philosophy of mind)
A comparison used in philosophy where consciousness is likened to how a prism splits white light into different colors—the idea being that the brain is like a medium that takes in physical properties and outputs conscious experiences.
Structural match(as used in epistemology)
A situation where two things have the same basic organization or arrangement—like how a map's layout mirrors the layout of the actual territory it represents.
Substrate(as the underlying physical foundation being discussed)
The physical stuff or material that something is made of or runs on; in this case, the brain as the physical basis for mental states.
phenomenal properties(Used in the context of higher-order thought theory to refer to properties whose presence is explained by higher-order representations)
The qualitative, 'what-it-is-like' features of conscious experience that characterize how perceptual states feel to the subject