Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Patients with complete deafferentation (e.g., Ian Waterman) lose somatic sensation yet retain voluntary motor agency over their bodies.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Waterman's movements are notably slow and effortful; this suggests diminished rather than retained agency—he executes residual motor patterns, not genuine control.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without proprioceptive feedback, Waterman cannot verify actual body position matches intention, so his 'agency' is illusory alignment of prediction with vision.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Complete reliance on visual monitoring reveals somatic sensation wasn't truly lost—it was substituted. The claim conflates modality-switching with agency preservation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Ian Waterman demonstrates precise voluntary motor control despite lacking proprioceptive feedback, showing motor agency doesn't require somatic sensation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Motor commands arise from motor cortex planning independent of sensory input; feedback serves refinement, not execution of voluntary action.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Waterman's case proves humans can learn compensatory visual strategies, establishing that agency persists when sensory modalities are substituted.
?
How convincing is this?
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.