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 In the auditory case, the premise that you can hear a sound without an environmental cause present is true, because hearing a sound produced by loudspeakers is not a hallucination.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A veridical perception requires not merely a causal connection but the right kind of causal connection between percept and object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Loudspeaker reproduction introduces a causal deviance: the heard 'sound' is causally connected to an encoded signal, not the original sound event.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If deviant causal chains undermine veridical perception in vision (Grice, Goldman), they equally undermine the claim that loudspeaker hearing is non-illusory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sounds, on the Aristotelian-Pasnau account, are essentially relational events constituted by the interaction of a body and a medium at a particular location and time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Loudspeakers produce numerically distinct sound events from the original source event, so the hearer perceives a different sound, not the original one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If what is heard is a numerically distinct surrogate event, the argument from loudspeakers fails to establish that one hears without an environmental cause—there is always a present cause, just not the intended one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.When hearing a sound in S2, you do not hallucinate the sound of a collision, since you can hear a sound without there being a collision (as when listening to music played by loudspeakers).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is still something that bears the auditory qualities you hear in S2, which can be produced by loudspeakers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hearing a sound produced by loudspeakers is clearly not a hallucination.
      ?

      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.