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 External sense-objects are unreal.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.An external sense-object cannot be the intentional object of cognition as a single unified thing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An external sense-object cannot be the intentional object of cognition as a multiple of isolated atoms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An external sense-object cannot be the intentional object of cognition as an aggregate, because the atom is not proven to exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Every cognition of a purported external object is phenomenologically exhausted by its representational content (ākāra), never the object itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the representational form (ākāra) fully accounts for the cognitive event, positing a causally redundant external object violates parsimony (Dignāga, Pramāṇasamuccaya).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.What is causally redundant and cognitively inaccessible in principle has no warrant for existence and may be classed as unreal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dream objects produce fully determinate perceptual experiences indistinguishable in structure from waking perception, yet possess no external referent (Vasubandhu, Viṃśikā).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If phenomenologically identical cognitive episodes can arise without external objects, the inference from experience to external object is systematically underdetermined.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A posit that is neither necessary for nor verifiable by any possible experience fails the criterion of conventional cognitive validity (pramāṇa) and is thus unreal.
      ?

      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.