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 Our beliefs about change and continuity in experience are false

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • It is impossible to provide an intelligible account of how we can be directly aware of change or movement
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Neuroscience shows temporal binding windows (~2-3 seconds) construct unified experience retrospectively, not through direct awareness of succession.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.What feels like continuous perception is a post-hoc narrative assembled from discrete neural snapshots, as Dennett's Multiple Drafts model demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If continuity is constructed rather than directly perceived, our introspective belief that we 'directly witness' change is systematically mistaken.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Husserl's retention-protention structure, meant to ground temporal experience, itself presupposes a 'now-point' that cannot be directly experienced without infinite regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any belief grounded in a structure containing irresolvable regress lacks the epistemic foundation required for that belief to count as veridical.
      ?

      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.