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 Thinking cannot be fundamentally understood as a spatial process

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Cognitive processes are constituted by physical brain states, which are irreducibly spatial and extended in neural architecture.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If thinking is identical to or supervenes on neural activity, then spatial properties of that activity are partly constitutive of thought.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Eliminativist and identity-theory traditions (Place, Smart, Armstrong) give us strong empirical and ontological reasons to reject a non-spatial res cogitans.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Embodied cognition research (Lakoff, Johnson, Varela) demonstrates that abstract thought is systematically structured by spatial schemas derived from bodily experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If spatial image-schemas such as containment, path, and verticality are not merely metaphors but the actual cognitive substrate of reasoning, thinking is spatially constituted at its foundation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The essence of res extensa (matter) is extension — i.e., spatial occupation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Res cogitans (mind) and res extensa are different substances existing independently
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.That which is not constituted by extension cannot be understood in spatial terms
      ?

      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.