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 simplest account of mind-dependence — that a thing is mind-dependent if it would not have existed without minds — is inadequate for the intended metaphysical notion.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.On the simplest account, a thing is mind-dependent if it would not or could not have existed if minds had not existed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tables and chairs would not have existed without minds (since minds causally produced them).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the simplest account entails that tables and chairs are mind-dependent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.