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
    Representing two objects as bearing a spatial relation to... — Carmelics
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Representing two objects as bearing a spatial relation to one another presupposes representing those objects as being in space.

    Modality & PossibilityPerception
    ?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.To represent A and B as being some distance apart, one must represent A and B as located within space.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Representing a distance relation between two objects is not analogous to representing a non-spatial relation like 'brighter than', which does not require embedding objects in a larger brightness space.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Spatial relations, unlike brightness relations, require the objects to be situated within a common spatial framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Relational properties can be primitive and irreducible: 'A is 5 meters from B' need not entail A or B being located within a background space.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibniz's relational theory of space holds that space is constructed from spatial relations, not presupposed by them, making the claim circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If space is nothing over and above the totality of spatial relations, then representing a spatial relation is constitutive of space, not dependent on it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Cognitive science and perceptual psychology (e.g., Shepard's work on apparent motion) suggest spatial relations between objects are computed before a unified spatial framework is represented.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the perceptual system represents relative position and distance as prior outputs from which global spatial structure is inferred, then spatial relations are psychologically and representationally prior to embedding space.
      ?

      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

    PerceptionModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Cognitive science and perceptual psychology (e.g., Shepard's work on apparent mo...If space is nothing over and above the totality of spatial relations, then repre...If the perceptual system represents relative position and distance as prior outp...Leibniz's relational theory of space holds that space is constructed from spatia...
    +4 moreShow less
    Relational properties can be primitive and irreducible: 'A is 5 meters from B' n...Representing a distance relation between two objects is not analogous to represe...Spatial relations, unlike brightness relations, require the objects to be situat...To represent A and B as being some distance apart, one must represent A and B as...

    Similar

    Representing a distance relation between two objects already presuppos...88%Locke begins with the perception of a distance relation between two ob...82%The relation between objects in space and experiences whose temporal o...82%If objects in space are merely our representations, then our represent...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: kant-spacetime
    View source passageHide passage
    Daniel Warren clarifies this argument in an especially helpful way (Warren 1998; cf. Allison 2004, 100–104). Certainly, it is not true in general that in any order to represent any two entities, A and B, as related in some way, I must represent them as falling into a larger “space” of some relevant character. Warren gives a useful example: in order to represent A as “brighter than” B, I need not represent A and B as being part of a larger “brightness” space. I could do so: I could represent A an
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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