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 self-referential argument that negation requires consciousness commits a use-mention fallacy: the act of negating need not itself be conscious.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Algorithmic negation merely manipulates symbols; understanding what negation *means* requires conscious intentionality about content.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The use-mention distinction doesn't establish that acts of negating are unconscious—only that we can discuss negation abstractly.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
For negation to apply to consciousness itself (as the original argument requires), some form of self-aware discrimination seems constitutive.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Negation as a linguistic operation can occur in non-conscious systems: algorithms perform logical negation without phenomenal awareness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Confusing the conscious experience of negating with negation's logical structure commits a category error.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Even if consciousness accompanies negation in humans, this is contingent, not necessary to negation's function.
?
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.