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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Retentions must be a distinctive and not commonly recognised form of experience, different from ordinary memories.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ordinary short-term memory (working memory) operates on timescales of milliseconds to seconds, directly overlapping with the window required for change perception.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Psychologists like Baddeley demonstrate working memory sustains vivid, action-guiding representations indistinguishable in functional role from Husserl's retentions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Positing retentions as a sui generis experiential kind violates parsimony when existing cognitive science accounts for the same phenomena without novel ontological commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.William James's 'specious present' account holds that immediate temporal experience involves a direct, non-representational apprehension of a brief duration as a whole.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the specious present is genuinely perceived as an extended now rather than reconstructed from retained traces, retentions as re-presentational acts become explanatorily redundant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The vividness differential between retention and ordinary memory can be explained by the specious present's width varying with attention, without invoking a categorically distinct experiential kind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Retentions re-present the past, as memories do, but must be more vivid than ordinary memories to fulfil their role in grounding immediate experience of change.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ordinary memory-images of perceiving an event (e.g. recalling the sight and sound of a falling tree) are qualitatively distinct from the immediate perception of that event — lacking its sharpness, vividness, and externality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.It is not plausible to suppose that ordinary memory-images are responsible for our immediate experience of change.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42