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 Change blindness does not show that there is no consciousness in the absence of attention; rather, it shows that consciousness exists in the absence of attention but is restricted to the scene's overall gist.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Only narratively insignificant differences go unnoticed in the change-blindness paradigm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Change blindness effects are consistent with consciousness being present but limited to gist-level content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Phenomenal consciousness, as Ned Block distinguishes it from access consciousness, can be rich and present without being cognitively accessible or reportable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Change blindness prevents report of changed details but leaves intact the phenomenal field from which gist is continuously extracted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Subjects' consistent reports of 'something changed' without identifying what changed confirm phenomenal presence without attentive access.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Lamme's recurrent processing theory holds that local feedback loops generate phenomenal consciousness prior to and independent of top-down attentional modulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If consciousness required attention, subjects would report blank perceptual fields during inattentional conditions, but they reliably report rich scenes with vague periphery instead.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The gist of a scene is computed rapidly via feedforward sweeps before attention deploys, providing a substrate for unattended phenomenal content consistent with the claim.
      ?

      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.