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 Schiffer's 'mutual knowledge' objection shows that Grice's original reflexive intention schema generates an infinite regress requiring ever-higher orders of mutual recognition.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The regress terminates at pragmatically sufficient levels of mutual recognition; speakers need not consciously entertain infinite intentions for communication to succeed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Schiffer conflates logical structure of intentions with the phenomenological or cognitive demands on agents—infinite structure doesn't require infinite processing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Grice's schema can be understood as a characterization of communicative content rather than a step-by-step cognitive procedure agents must execute, avoiding the regress problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Grice's schema requires S intends that H recognizes S's intention, which itself requires H to recognize S's intention about that recognition—creating infinite nesting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Each new level of intentional embedding adds a distinct cognitive requirement that cannot be satisfied by finite minds, making the schema practically impossible to instantiate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Natural language communication succeeds regularly, yet Grice's account cannot explain how finite agents meet its infinite requirements without additional theoretical machinery.
      ?

      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.