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
    Young infants expect that two physical objects cannot occ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Young infants expect that two physical objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The violation-of-expectancy paradigm requires infants to find the screen-passing-through-object event impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Infants looked longer at the impossible event.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.For the event to constitute a violation, infants must assume two objects cannot occupy the same space simultaneously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Longer looking in violation-of-expectancy paradigms may reflect perceptual novelty or visual salience rather than conceptual surprise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Spelke's own studies show infants look longer at physically possible but visually novel events, undermining the inference from looking-time to violated expectation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without distinguishing perceptual preference from epistemic expectation, the paradigm cannot establish that infants possess a concept of solidity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Piaget's sensorimotor account holds that object permanence and physical knowledge are constructed through action-perception cycles, not innately represented.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If physical-object concepts emerge from repeated sensorimotor feedback rather than core cognition, the looking-time data reflects learned statistical regularities, not innate principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Haith's critique establishes that infants' looking behaviors are fully explicable by low-level perceptual expectancies without positing abstract object representations.
      ?

      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

    PerceptionConsciousness & Mind

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    For the event to constitute a violation, infants must assume two objects cannot ...Haith's critique establishes that infants' looking behaviors are fully explicabl...If physical-object concepts emerge from repeated sensorimotor feedback rather th...Infants looked longer at the impossible event.
    +5 moreShow less
    Longer looking in violation-of-expectancy paradigms may reflect perceptual novel...Piaget's sensorimotor account holds that object permanence and physical knowledg...Spelke's own studies show infants look longer at physically possible but visuall...The violation-of-expectancy paradigm requires infants to find the screen-passing...Without distinguishing perceptual preference from epistemic expectation, the par...

    Similar

    For the event to constitute a violation, infants must assume two objec...85%The impossible event (screen passing through occupied space) would onl...78%If infants lacked object permanence, impossible events involving hidde...78%No infant has ever confused mental states with physical objects, demon...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: innateness-cognition
    View source passageHide passage
    Object permanence. In the last 35 years, the baby’s representation of objects has been re-explored with striking results. A landmark study (Baillargeon et al. 1985) used the violation-of-expectancy paradigm to test the Piagetian claim that infants lack object permanence. Five-month-old infants were shown a screen that rotated 180 degrees up from the surface of a table and back again to its initial position. In the habituation phase, the babies got used to the screen motion and their looking time
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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