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
    No further explanation of motion and change perception is... — Carmelics
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    No further explanation of motion and change perception is required beyond what the Cinematic antirealist account provides.

    Consciousness & MindPerception
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The 'succession of static snapshots' conception of experience, as proposed by the Cinematic antirealist, is correct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the contents and temporal arrangement of static snapshots are sufficient to convince the brain that motion and change are being perceived, then the perceiver will inevitably believe motion and change are being perceived.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If a perceiver inevitably believes they are perceiving motion and change, they will describe their experience in those terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Husserl's phenomenological analysis shows temporal experience has irreducible 'retentional' structure: each moment carries the just-past as co-present, not as memory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This retentional co-presence is a genuine phenomenal feature of experience that cannot be reconstructed from a sequence of static, punctate snapshot-contents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the Cinematic account fails to explain not just why we believe in motion, but why motion has the distinctive phenomenal character it does.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dainton's 'Extensional' view establishes that conscious experience itself has genuine temporal extension, with earlier and later phases directly co-experienced within a specious present.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If experience is genuinely extended rather than cinematic, then what requires explanation is real phenomenal continuity, not merely the inferential belief that motion occurred.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An account that only explains third-personal belief-formation systematically misdescribes the first-personal explanandum, leaving the core phenomenon unexplained.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    PerceptionConsciousness & Mind

    Related

    An account that only explains third-personal belief-formation systematically mis...Dainton's 'Extensional' view establishes that conscious experience itself has ge...Explaining why perceivers believe they perceive motion and change and describe e...Husserl's phenomenological analysis shows temporal experience has irreducible 'r...
    +6 moreShow less
    If a perceiver inevitably believes they are perceiving motion and change, they w...If experience is genuinely extended rather than cinematic, then what requires ex...If the contents and temporal arrangement of static snapshots are sufficient to c...The 'succession of static snapshots' conception of experience, as proposed by th...Therefore the Cinematic account fails to explain not just why we believe in moti...This retentional co-presence is a genuine phenomenal feature of experience that ...

    Similar

    Explaining why perceivers believe they perceive motion and change and ...81%If a perceiver inevitably believes they are perceiving motion and chan...79%It is impossible to provide an intelligible account of how we can be d...76%We perceive motion directly rather than inferring it from memory of pa...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: consciousness-temporal
    View source passageHide passage
    Suppose the ‘succession of static snapshots’ conception of experience, as proposed by the Cinematic antirealist is correct. Provided the contents and temporal arrangement of these static snapshots are enough to convince our brains that we are perceiving motion and change, we will inevitably believe that this is what we are perceiving, and hence describe our experience in such terms. Isn’t this all that we are required to explain? For Dennett and Chuard nothing further is needed.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit