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 Two levels of discourse A and B are more-than-causally connected only if one entails the other a priori

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Chalmers' conceivability argument shows that zombies are ideally conceivable, meaning no a priori inference from physical to phenomenal facts succeeds even in principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If phenomenal consciousness is more-than-causally connected to physical states (as property dualists and many physicalists hold), yet no a priori entailment holds, the biconditional fails.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument illicitly conflates functional-dispositional properties like waterish behavior with intrinsic qualitative properties like phenomenal character, which resist a priori derivation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's necessary a posteriori shows that identity statements like 'water=H2O' are necessary yet knowable only empirically, establishing a category of non-entailing necessary connections.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If necessary connections can hold without a priori entailment, then more-than-causal connection does not require a priori entailment as a necessary condition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.In relatively uncontroversial cases of a posteriori necessary connections, one can argue a priori from facts about the microstructure to the manifest facts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In the case of water, it follows a priori that if something has the micro-level properties attributed to H2O by chemistry, then that thing would possess waterish macro-level properties
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.What is established a posteriori is merely that H2O is the substance that underlies and explains waterish properties, not that the sufficiency of the base requires a posteriori reasoning
      ?

      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.