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
    This causal constraint applies equally to mental utteranc... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→A brain in a vat cannot grasp the meanings of general terms such as 'tree', 'brain', and 'vat'.

    This causal constraint applies equally to mental utterances and the concepts expressed by such words, not only spoken utterances.

    Consciousness & MindPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageConsciousness & Mind

    Connections

    2 topics

    Skepticism2 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Causation
    1 linked

    Related

    A brain in a vat cannot grasp the meanings of general terms such as 'tree', 'bra...A brain in a vat has no causal connection to real trees, brains, or vats.For a term to represent or refer to an object, there must be a causal connection...

    Similar

    The concept of causality is contributed by the mind a priori, not deri...80%Mental concepts are causally defined — what makes mental states and ev...80%Therefore, causally interacting mental events must instantiate some no...79%Including physical predicates alongside mental predicates is necessary...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: skepticism-content-externalism
    View source passageHide passage
    Putnam’s goal is to refute the skeptical argument that is based on the BIV hypothesis, by providing a counterargument for the conclusion that we are not BIVs. Thus, each of us is provided with a way of knowing that she is not a BIV, contrary to premise (3) of the skeptical argument (SA) above. The crucial move in Putnam’s argument is a sub-argument to the effect that that if one were a BIV, one would not be able to grasp the meanings of various general terms, such as ‘tree’, ‘brain’, and ‘vat’.

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective