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 felt coherence of experience can be accounted for by psychological regularities, not logical necessities of a priori synthesis.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Psychological regularities themselves require explanation; they cannot ground the unity that makes their own coherence possible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Mere contingent regularities cannot account for necessary structural features of experience, like the mandatory spatio-temporal form of all intuitions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates causal explanation of experience with logical justification for why experience must have coherent structure at all.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Neuroscience shows brain regularities (neural binding, predictive coding) explain experiential unity without invoking a priori structures.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Empirical learning and evolutionary adaptation can account for coherence patterns; logical necessity cannot explain contingent variations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Psychological regularities are simpler and more parsimonious than positing transcendental synthetic a priori conditions.
?
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.