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 This mirrors Jackson and Chalmers's conceivability arguments: if the same physical dispositions are conceivable without the quiddity, the quiddity adds no causal-explanatory content.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Conceivability does not entail metaphysical possibility; we can conceive physically impossible scenarios.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quiddities may be causally relevant via their role in grounding or constituting the physical dispositions themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Jackson/Chalmers arguments conflate epistemic justification with metaphysical explanatory power—different standards apply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If two scenarios are physically and dispositionally identical, they must have identical causal powers by definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quiddities are intrinsic properties independent of causal roles, so removing them leaves causal profiles unchanged.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Causal-explanatory content exhausts what matters scientifically; non-causal properties are explanatorily inert.
      ?

      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.