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 A succession of experiential phases that are diachronically co-conscious already constitutes an experience of succession without requiring additional explanation

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Co-consciousness is a symmetric unity relation, but succession requires asymmetric before/after structure that mere co-presence cannot supply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The 'diachronic' qualifier smuggles in temporal order without explaining how co-conscious phases acquire their directional, asymmetric phenomenal character.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If co-consciousness alone constituted experienced succession, simultaneous co-conscious contents would equally generate succession, which is absurd.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Husserl's retention-protention structure shows that temporal experience requires intentional acts directed at phases as past or imminent, not mere co-occurrence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A specious present constituted only by co-conscious phases collapses into an undifferentiated 'now,' destroying the very succession it purports to explain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Diachronic co-consciousness means that a temporal spread of contents are all experienced together
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If phases P1, P2, P3 … Pn are diachronically co-conscious, they form a single specious present
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A single specious present comprising successive phases just is an experience of succession
      ?

      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.