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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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