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 If co-consciousness alone constituted experienced succession, simultaneous co-conscious contents would equally generate succession, which is absurd.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Co-conscious contents can have internal structure and intentional relations that create experienced order without temporal gap.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim assumes 'co-consciousness' means undifferentiated unity, but it could involve relational structure among contents.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Simultaneity in consciousness doesn't entail indistinguishability; we grasp simultaneously-presented narratives as ordered.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Succession requires temporal ordering: one event before another. Simultaneity explicitly precludes this ordering.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If co-consciousness alone explained succession, the difference between sequential and simultaneous states would be irrelevant.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Experience clearly distinguishes between seeing events in sequence versus grasping multiple facts at once.
?
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.