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 proposed escape from panpsychism — that having a thought as a part does not entail being a thinking thing — is itself absurd.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The only way to make sense of something having a thought as a part without itself thinking is to assume that thoughts are unthinking.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The assumption that thoughts are unthinking is absurd in itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Brentano's thesis holds that intentionality — the 'aboutness' of mental states — is the defining mark of the mental, making thoughts intrinsically subject-directed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If thoughts are intrinsically subject-directed, then a thought-part cannot be a mere inert constituent; it retains its intentional character within any whole containing it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any whole containing an intrinsically intentional part must itself instantiate that intentionality, collapsing the proposed escape into the panpsychism it sought to avoid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Chalmers' combination problem demonstrates that no aggregation of micro-level mental properties straightforwardly yields macro-level mentality without the aggregate itself being minded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The escape strategy presupposes that thought-parts can be concatenated into a non-thinking whole, but this is precisely the move the combination problem shows to be explanatorily incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An explanatorily incoherent escape strategy is not a genuine escape, making the original panpsychist entailment remain undefeated.
      ?

      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.