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 project of reducing phenomenal properties to physical properties is doomed to failure.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If phenomenal properties do not metaphysically supervene on physical properties, then no reduction of phenomenal properties to physical properties is possible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Chalmers' zombie argument, if successful, shows that phenomenal properties do not metaphysically supervene on physical properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The explanatory gap between physical descriptions and phenomenal experience is not merely epistemic but reflects an ontological asymmetry in nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Levine's explanatory gap argument shows that even complete physical knowledge leaves unexplained why neural states feel like anything at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any successful reduction must eliminate the explanandum, but phenomenal consciousness cannot be eliminated without changing the subject entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Jackson's Mary argument demonstrates that complete physical knowledge is epistemically incomplete with respect to qualia, suggesting physical facts underdetermine phenomenal facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If phenomenal facts are not entailed a priori by physical facts, reductive physicalism fails even granting metaphysical supervenience, as Chalmers' two-dimensional semantics shows.
      ?

      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.