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 The fact that an object is a constituent of a veridical experience does not entail that its absence produces a subjectively different experience-type.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Veridical experiences causally depend on actual objects; removing the cause typically alters the effect.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Object absence forces reliance on memory or imagination, which characteristically differ phenomenologically.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The subtle causal-historical difference between veridical and merely hallucinatory states affects experiential quality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Phenomenal character depends on quale intensity and relational structure, not object presence alone.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Two experiences can share identical subjective feel while differing in external constitution.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Hallucinations demonstrate that absent objects can produce experiences indistinguishable from veridical ones.
?
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.