Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that What we conceive when imagining 'ourselves without bodies' may merely reflect our incomplete knowledge of mind-brain identity, not a genuine gap in nature.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The conceivability of disembodied consciousness appears irreducible to mere ignorance—it's structurally distinct from heat/motion cases.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If mind-brain identity were true, neural damage should be fully predictive of mental loss; explanatory gaps suggest otherwise.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Invoking 'incomplete knowledge' as explanation for conceivability gaps risks making physicalism unfalsifiable and unfalsifiable claims aren't science.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Historical science repeatedly revealed apparent gaps were ignorance, not real divisions (e.g., life/non-life, heat/matter).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
We can imagine disembodied minds yet lack introspective access to neural correlates, creating illusion of independence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Complete mind-brain identity is consistent with conceivability of disembodied minds if our concepts are simply incomplete.
?
How convincing is this?
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.