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
    Ordinary talk of 'seeing' things move is intelligible on ... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Ordinary talk of 'seeing' things move is intelligible on its own terms.

    PerceptionPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.In ordinary life, 'the present' is construed in a loose and flexible way, denoting a period of time rather than a durationless moment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Temporal intervals can contain change and movement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the present denotes a period that can contain movement, then saying one sees movement does not entail a contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Perception is constitutively tied to the specious present, which William James and E.R. Clay argued is a bounded interval, not an indefinitely elastic one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the specious present has fixed neurophysiological limits (~2-3 seconds), then 'seeing' events beyond that interval involves memory, not perception proper.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A concept of 'seeing movement' that conflates perceptual presence with memorial retention is not intelligible on its own terms but equivocates between distinct cognitive acts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dummett and Husserl both argue that perceiving change requires a retentional structure in which past phases are held in immediate consciousness, not merely recalled.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If retentional consciousness is a theoretical posit required to explain temporal perception, then ordinary talk of 'seeing movement' is not self-explanatory but depends on a non-obvious phenomenological mechanism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A linguistic practice that requires substantial theoretical scaffolding to be coherent is not intelligible strictly 'on its own terms.'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguagePerception

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    A concept of 'seeing movement' that conflates perceptual presence with memorial ...A linguistic practice that requires substantial theoretical scaffolding to be co...Dummett and Husserl both argue that perceiving change requires a retentional str...If retentional consciousness is a theoretical posit required to explain temporal...
    +5 moreShow less
    If the present denotes a period that can contain movement, then saying one sees ...If the specious present has fixed neurophysiological limits (~2-3 seconds), then...In ordinary life, 'the present' is construed in a loose and flexible way, denoti...Perception is constitutively tied to the specious present, which William James a...Temporal intervals can contain change and movement.

    Similar

    All sensory things are intelligible.76%If a perceiver inevitably believes they are perceiving motion and chan...76%Perception requires the possibility of achieving different perspective...76%It is impossible to provide an intelligible account of how we can be d...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: consciousness-temporal
    View source passageHide passage
    For Reid the apparent contradiction between strict philosophical truth and common sense (and common experience) is superficial: ‘It arises from this, that philosophers and the vulgar differ in the meaning they put upon what is called the present time, and are thereby led to made a different limit between sense and memory’ (1855: 236). Reid argues that our ordinary talk of ‘seeing’ things move is intelligible, at least on its own terms, because in ordinary life we generally construe the present i
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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