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 When sensory integration processes can reassign bodily ownership to non-self objects, proprioception fails the reliability condition IEM presupposes.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Rubber hand illusions affect judgment about ownership, not proprioceptive content itself—distinction IEM defenders can maintain consistently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Temporary illusions don't undermine reliability conditions; proprioception remains statistically robust across normal embodied contexts overall.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
IEM applies to basic proprioceptive states, not high-level body schema; illusions target the latter, leaving immunity to error through misidentification intact.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rubber hand illusions demonstrably reassign bodily ownership to external objects through multisensory synchrony, not introspective authority.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If proprioception can be systematically deceived about ownership boundaries, it lacks the immunity to error through misidentification IEM requires.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
IEM's reliability condition assumes proprioceptive content is self-verifying; sensory reassignment shows content can be accurate yet ownership-false.
?
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.