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 Illusion cases involve misperception of actual material things, not substitution of a different object of experience.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The phenomenal content we experience in illusions (apparent redness, shape) is causally independent of the actual object's properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If illusions involve direct contact with material things, we must explain why perceptual experience doesn't match the object itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Sense-data theories consistently explain illusions by positing experiential objects distinct from external material things.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
In illusions, we perceive properties of objects that actually exist (e.g., a bent stick in water), just with distorted qualities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The causal chain in illusions traces back to a real material object affecting our sensory apparatus, unlike hallucinations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Illusions are correctable by acquiring better information about the same object, suggesting continuity of reference.
?
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.