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
    An infinite regress fallacy does not arise for witnessing... — Carmelics
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An infinite regress fallacy does not arise for witnessing consciousness even though consciousness cannot become its own object

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.Consciousness does not require a second, subsequent, or higher-order cognition to reveal itself
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The witness is self-established and needs no external apprehension
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Only a theory requiring further cognitions to illumine prior cognitions generates a regress
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Self-luminosity claims face a structural dilemma: either consciousness knows itself by a cognitive act, generating regress, or it does not know itself at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dharmakīrti and the Buddhist epistemologists argued that svasaṃvedana (self-awareness) must still be a reflexive cognition, which reintroduces the act/object distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the witness is genuinely objectless, it cannot discriminate its own presence from absence, making self-establishment epistemically vacuous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Higher-order thought theories (Rosenthal) hold that a mental state is conscious only when accompanied by a suitable higher-order representation of it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A witness consciousness that requires no higher-order cognition cannot account for the phenomenal difference between conscious and unconscious mental states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Exempting witnessing consciousness from the regress by fiat is an ad hoc move that privileges one cognitive level without principled justification.
      ?

      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

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A witness consciousness that requires no higher-order cognition cannot account f...Consciousness does not require a second, subsequent, or higher-order cognition t...Dharmakīrti and the Buddhist epistemologists argued that svasaṃvedana (self-awar...Exempting witnessing consciousness from the regress by fiat is an ad hoc move th...
    +5 moreShow less
    Higher-order thought theories (Rosenthal) hold that a mental state is conscious ...If the witness is genuinely objectless, it cannot discriminate its own presence ...Only a theory requiring further cognitions to illumine prior cognitions generate...Self-luminosity claims face a structural dilemma: either consciousness knows its...The witness is self-established and needs no external apprehension

    Similar

    Even if an infinite regress were not vicious in principle, finite mind...80%If consciousness does not arise from an external object, the indetermi...79%Positing additional eyes within the brain leads to an infinite regress...79%An infinite regress of cognitions would mean no perception could ever ...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: shankara
    View source passageHide passage
    Śaṅkara repudiates rival philosophies such as the Nyāya school which rejects witnessing consciousness and self-illumination in favor of other-illumination (paraprakāśa)—a thesis more akin to contemporary higher order theories. Nyāya argues that a second cognition is required to illumine the first. Śaṅkara’s basic counter-critique is that if a primary cognition requires a second apperceptive cognition to be known, then the second would require a third, etc., leading to a vicious infinite regressi
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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