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 supporting argument's premise that awareness of bodily motions is required for occasioned perception presupposes a causal model that pre-established harmony explicitly rejects.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Pre-established harmony still requires some explanation of how perceptions correlate with bodily states, even without causal interaction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Awareness of bodily motion may be phenomenologically required for perception without requiring explicit acceptance of any causal model.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim equivocates between metaphysical presuppositions and epistemological conditions for perception to be justified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Pre-established harmony denies causal interaction between mind and body, so perception cannot depend on awareness of bodily causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Occasionalism requires God as intermediary cause, making bodily awareness epistemically unnecessary for perception to occur.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument conflates two distinct questions: what causes perception versus what we must know about causation to perceive.
      ?

      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.