Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The subset-of-causal-relations account can block token-identity between generic and specific types
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Token causal profiles are individuated by their actual causal history, not by the subset relations holding between their type-level causal powers.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Two tokens sharing identical actual causal histories remain identical even if their types stand in proper-subset causal relations, since type-level structure underdetermines token identity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Yablo's own account of determinables entails that a determinate's causal powers include but do not exceed those of its determinable, making the subset relation symmetric at the token level.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the subset relation between generic and specific causal powers collapses into equivalence for any particular token instance, the subset account loses its principled basis for blocking token-identity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If the proper subset relation between causal relations of generic and specific types is preserved at the level of tokens, then tokens of generic types differ causally from tokens of specific types
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Causal difference at the token level is sufficient to block token-identity
?
How convincing is this?
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.