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
    There are no strict, purely psychological laws of the for... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There are no strict, purely psychological laws of the form 'M1 & M2 → M3'

    CausationConsciousness & Mind
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mental states are individuated by their normative rational relations, not by causal-nomological regularities (Davidson, 'Mental Events', 1970).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Norms of rationality governing belief-desire-action inference are constitutive of mentality, not empirical generalizations subject to strict exceptionless formulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any purely psychological generalization can always be defeated by irrational responses, making strict ceteris-paribus-free psychological laws impossible in principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Propositional attitude ascription is holistic: the correct assignment of any one mental state depends on the assignment of indefinitely many others (the principle of charity).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Holistic interdependence of mental content entails that no finite conjunction of mental antecedents M1 & M2 can close off all content-relevant background conditions needed to guarantee M3.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This holism-based incompleteness is internal to the mental domain itself, not merely a result of external physical intervention, and thus survives the objection that openness is only causal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Physical events causally impact on mental events (the interaction principle)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If physical events causally impact on mental events, then the mental domain is 'open'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any laws in which mental predicates figure must take into account the openness of the mental domain to physical causation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Consciousness & MindCausation

    Related

    Any laws in which mental predicates figure must take into account the openness o...Any purely psychological generalization can always be defeated by irrational res...Holistic interdependence of mental content entails that no finite conjunction of...If physical events causally impact on mental events, then the mental domain is '...
    +6 moreShow less
    Mental states are individuated by their normative rational relations, not by cau...Norms of rationality governing belief-desire-action inference are constitutive o...Physical conditions (e.g., injury) can always intervene to prevent the occurrenc...Physical events causally impact on mental events (the interaction principle)Propositional attitude ascription is holistic: the correct assignment of any one...This holism-based incompleteness is internal to the mental domain itself, not me...

    Similar

    Purely psychological laws of the form 'M1 & M2 → M3' cannot be strict ...89%The only potentially true and strict laws in which psychological predi...89%Bridge laws of the form 'P1 ↔ M1' are strict laws in which mental pred...85%There are no strict psychological laws and co-ordinate conditions that...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: anomalous-monism
    View source passageHide passage
    Davidson uses the interaction principle to establish directly one part of mental anomalism—psychological anomalism, which denies the possibility of strict, purely psychological laws of the form ‘M1 & M2 → M3’ (Davidson 1970, 224; 1974b, 243). For if physical events causally impact on mental events, then the mental domain is ‘open’, and any laws in which mental predicates figure will have to take this into account (for related discussion, see the supplement on Causal Closure of the Physical
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit