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 Veridical visual experiences and hallucinatory experiences must themselves be different experiences

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Disjunctivism conflates the metaphysics of experience-constitution with the epistemology of experience-discrimination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The fact that an object is a constituent of a veridical experience does not entail that its absence produces a subjectively different experience-type.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Austin and Ayer's debate over the argument from illusion shows that object-presence underdetermines phenomenal character.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The phenomenal character of an experience is fully determined by the intrinsic neural states of the subject, not by external objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If two experiences are neurally identical, they are phenomenally identical regardless of whether an object is causally present.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Seen objects are constituents of veridical visual experiences
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Seen objects are not constituents of hallucinatory experiences
      ?

      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.