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 phenomenological givenness of mineness in experience resists reduction to a contingent bundle of negatable representations.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Mineness can be empirically disrupted or absent (depersonalization, narrative self-alienation), suggesting contingent representational bases.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The appearance of givenness is itself a high-order cognitive representation, not a primitive phenomenological fact requiring special status.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
No principled distinction exists between 'resistant to reduction' and 'we lack current reductive tools'; absence of explanation isn't evidence of irreducibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
First-person perspective has intrinsic, non-relational properties that cannot be eliminated by negating any particular representation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The sense of ownership in experience persists even when all representational content is systematically doubted or altered.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Phenomenological mineness is prior to and constitutive of how any representations appear as mine, rather than derived from them.
?
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.