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
    The relation between objects in space and experiences who... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The relation between objects in space and experiences whose temporal order we correctly determine need not be causal; objects in space need only provide a frame of reference.

    CausationPerception
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Reichenbach's analysis of time order shows that temporal relations among events can be grounded in signal connectibility without requiring causal production between object-states and observer experiences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A spatial object functions as a clock-analog when its states are publicly readable as a sequence, and public readability requires only lawful regularity, not causal efficacy directed at the perceiver.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's own Analogies require that substance persists as the substrate of time-determination, not that it causally generates the appearances whose order is determined — persistence and causation are distinct categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Evans and Campbell's work on demonstrative thought shows that objects anchor egocentric spatial frameworks through their role as reference points, a purely relational function that carries no commitment to causal production of experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.An enduring, perceivable object provides a temporal backdrop against which the succession, coexistence, and duration of appearances in a common time can be determined.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An object can serve as a temporal reference without its states causing the experiences being ordered — for example, the states of the sun need not cause one's experiences for the sun's states to serve as a temporal reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    PerceptionCausation

    Related

    A spatial object functions as a clock-analog when its states are publicly readab...An enduring, perceivable object provides a temporal backdrop against which the s...An object can serve as a temporal reference without its states causing the exper...Evans and Campbell's work on demonstrative thought shows that objects anchor ego...
    +2 moreShow less
    Kant's own Analogies require that substance persists as the substrate of time-de...Reichenbach's analysis of time order shows that temporal relations among events ...

    Similar

    The relation between objects in space and the experiences whose tempor...95%An object can serve as a temporal reference without its states causing...83%Objects outside us in space must exist and be perceived in order for u...83%My awareness of the determinate temporal order of my past experiences ...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: kant-transcendental
    View source passageHide passage
    Several points of interpretation should be noted. First, it is generally agreed that the notion of awareness in Premise (1) should be interpreted as a success notion, i.e., that to be aware that I have experiences that occur in a specific temporal order is to correctly determine that they occur in this order (Allison 1983: 290ff, Guyer 1987: 293ff, Dicker 2004, 195ff., 2008; Chignell 2010). Second, most commentators concur that the experiences at issue are my past experiences. Guyer suggests tha
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit