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 must be real and must have being

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Eliminative materialists like Churchland argue that 'thinking' as a folk-psychological category may not correspond to any real natural kind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'thinking' fails to carve nature at its joints, the inference from knowledge to the reality of thinking inherits a conceptually defective term.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A claim cannot establish the being of an entity whose very description may be a theoretical fiction awaiting replacement by neuroscience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's bundle theory holds that what we call 'thinking' is a succession of discrete impressions and ideas with no unified substantial reality underlying them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If thinking is merely a convenient label for a sequence of fleeting perceptions, it possesses no persistent being beyond those momentary constituents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's premise that realized knowledge requires a structurally identical relatum presupposes a robust, enduring thinker that Humean skepticism explicitly denies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Knowledge can only be realized if it establishes a relation between real items
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Real items must be structurally identical
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Realized knowledge is a discursive/conceptual relation that can only be established by thinking
      ?

      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.