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 Finite differentiation is defeated in digital images because display pixels can be lit at intensities between and indiscriminable from adjacent discriminable intensities.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Display pixels can be lit at intensities between adjacent discriminable intensities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Display pixels can be lit at intensities indiscriminable from adjacent discriminable intensities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Goodman's finite differentiation requires that every pair of characters be such that it is not, in principle, impossible to determine that a mark belongs to one rather than the other.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Digital display systems possess continuous voltage gradients allowing pixel intensities to fall at positions unassignable to any discrete notational character.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When a mark cannot be definitively assigned to one character rather than another, the syntactic disjointness required for a notational scheme is violated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peacocke's theory of perceptual content holds that indiscriminability is not merely epistemic but constitutive of the identity conditions of perceptual types.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If two pixel intensities are perceptually indiscriminable yet numerically distinct, no finite partition of the intensity spectrum can yield determinate character-membership.
      ?

      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.