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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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