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 we only ever perceive what is past does not by itself explain what it is to perceive something as present rather than as past.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
The phenomenal character of 'nowness' is constituted by the causal-informational recency of the signal, not by a separate representational layer.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If what makes content feel present is its position in a causal hierarchy relative to other signals, then the pastness of the physical cause fully explains presentness as a relational property.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Husserl's retentional structure shows that 'as present' is simply the limiting case of retention with zero elapsed interval, reducible to temporal indexing within the same explanatory framework.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Dainton's extensional view holds that conscious experience itself spans a brief temporal interval, so the 'as present' quality attaches to the experienced interval, not to an instant.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If perceiving-as-present is a feature of the specious present as a whole, then the pastness of any single perceived item is absorbed into an interval that is itself phenomenally present, dissolving the explanatory gap the claim identifies.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Perceiving the present and perceiving something as present are distinct.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Showing that all perceived items are past concerns what is perceived, not how it is perceived (as present or as past).
?
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.