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 The perception of a continuous underlying sound revealed by the opening and closing of the jar is phenomenologically legitimate and requires theoretical explanation.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Perceptual continuity reports are constructive inferences by the auditory system, not veridical detections of persisting entities (Helmholtz, unconscious inference).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The brain's auditory stream segregation (Bregman) can generate illusory continuity from silence, meaning phenomenology here tracks neural interpolation, not mind-independent sound persistence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A phenomenologically compelling experience is not sufficient grounds for ontological commitment to the persisting sound object it appears to reveal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The visual analogy fails because light-occluded objects have continuous spatial location grounding persistence, whereas a silenced sound source emits no wave disturbance and thus has no comparable physical continuant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On a wave-transmission ontology of sound (O'Callaghan, Pasnau), sounds just are pressure wave events in a medium, so a sound that produces no such waves during intervals literally ceases to exist rather than persisting unheard.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Listeners report two distinct impressions: a series of short discrete sounds, and a single continuous sound that is merely revealed by the lid openings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The fading of intensity is audible from one window to the next, which is evidence that the same sound persists across intervals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A visual analogue supports this: an object illuminated at intervals in the dark is perceived as having continuous colors, not as repeatedly acquiring and losing them.
      ?

      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.