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 is no way to explain how one substance could causal... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There is no way to explain how one substance could causally influence another substance

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Causal interaction between two beings requires the transmission or transposition of parts between those beings
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Substances are simple, unextended entities that contain no parts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Causal interaction requires only nomological regularity between states, not transmission of parts between substances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's regularity theory demonstrates that constant conjunction suffices for causation without requiring any physical transfer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Malebranche's occasionalism shows substances can be causally connected via a third mediating entity without direct part-transfer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God can coordinate distinct substances as occasional causes, then inter-substance causation is coherent without part-transmission.
      ?

      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

    Modality & PossibilityCausation

    Related

    Causal interaction between two beings requires the transmission or transposition...Causal interaction requires only nomological regularity between states, not tran...Hume's regularity theory demonstrates that constant conjunction suffices for cau...If God can coordinate distinct substances as occasional causes, then inter-subst...
    +2 moreShow less
    Malebranche's occasionalism shows substances can be causally connected via a thi...Substances are simple, unextended entities that contain no parts

    Similar

    Final causality is insufficient to explain the existence of substances...84%Final causality can at best explain why an already-existing substance ...82%Transeunt causation among substances is impossible81%Leibniz's argument against inter-substantial causation would rule out ...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: leibniz-mind
    View source passageHide passage
    He seems to think that causal interaction between two beings requires the transmission or transposition of the parts of those beings. But substances are simple unextended entities which contain no parts. Thus, there is no way to explain how one substance could influence another. Unfortunately, however, this line of reasoning would seem to also rule out one case of inter-substantial causation which Leibniz allows, viz., God’s concurrent causal action on finite simple substances.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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