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 At least some problems with the early/late debate stem from an assumption about the linearity of the processes that support personal-level thinking, not from an assumption about linearity of neural processing per se.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Broadbent's original filter theory was explicitly motivated by capacity limits in neural channels, not assumptions about personal-level cognitive architecture.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the early/late debate originates in empirical constraints on neural bandwidth (Cherry 1953, dichotic listening), then linearity of personal-level processing is a downstream inference, not the generative assumption.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mislocating the source of theoretical error in personal-level assumptions rather than neural modeling obscures the actual empirical stakes of the debate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Treisman's attenuation model and Deutsch-Norman late selection theory disagree specifically about when neural representations become available to response systems, not about personal-level linearity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If rival theorists share no common assumption about personal-level process linearity yet still generate the early/late debate, then that assumption cannot be what drives the debate's problems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The communications-engineer perspective treats as wasteful the idea that physical properties already represented must be re-represented in a parallel system to support conscious access.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This perspective generates an assumption that the processes supporting personal-level thinking are linear — i.e., that earlier representations are directly available to later personal-level cognition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This assumption about linearity of personal-level processes is what drives the early/late debate's errors.
      ?

      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.