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 deviant causal chains undermine veridical perception in vision (Grice, Goldman), they equally undermine the claim that loudspeaker hearing is non-illusory.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Deviant causal chains matter only when they bypass the normal causal mechanism; loudspeaker chains preserve acoustic causation (sound waves), not bypass it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Vision's deviant chains typically involve hallucinations or misrepresentation; loudspeaker hearing accurately represents the original source's acoustic properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The speaker is a legitimate instrument, not an interference; we don't call microscope vision illusory despite causal mediation by lenses.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Deviant causal chains (perception → neural event → artifact) break the required direct causal link between object and perceptual experience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Loudspeaker hearing involves deviant chains: sound source → electrical signal → speaker vibration → air waves → ear, not direct acoustic contact.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If we accept deviant chain theory in vision, consistency demands applying it equally across sensory modalities regardless of technological mediation.
?
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.