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
    Phenomena that appear to be real external objects (such a... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Phenomena that appear to be real external objects (such as a blue-patch) are not distinct from the phenomenological experience of those objects

    Consciousness & MindPerception
    ?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.That which stands in causal relations is mere consciousness only
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Whatever is causally established abides in consciousness
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Material form experienced in dreams is not distinct from the dreaming experience itself
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika demonstrates that consciousness itself lacks svabhava and cannot serve as the ontological ground for appearances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If consciousness has no intrinsic nature, collapsing external objects into consciousness merely relocates rather than resolves the problem of appearance and reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Yogacara's vijnanavada therefore substitutes one form of reification (material objects) for another (pure consciousness), violating the two-truths framework it claims to uphold.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dignaga's own apoha theory requires that conceptual distinctions track causally distinct external constraints, implying mind-independent differentiating factors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If blue-patch experiences are not distinct from their objects, then two observers reporting divergent experiences of the same causal locus cannot be explained without reintroducing external object-types as theoretical posits.
      ?

      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

    Causation2 linked

    Related

    Dignaga's own apoha theory requires that conceptual distinctions track causally ...If blue-patch experiences are not distinct from their objects, then two observer...If consciousness has no intrinsic nature, collapsing external objects into consc...Material form experienced in dreams is not distinct from the dreaming experience...
    +4 moreShow less
    Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika demonstrates that consciousness itself lacks sv...That which stands in causal relations is mere consciousness onlyWhatever is causally established abides in consciousnessYogacara's vijnanavada therefore substitutes one form of reification (material o...

    Similar

    The reality of an external object cannot be established through direct...78%It only appears that external physical objects and sensory faculties g...76%Three-dimensional external objects are never exhaustively presented in...75%The immediate object of human perception is the idea, not the external...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: twotruths-india
    View source passageHide passage
    In terms of the argument, Śāntarakṣita argues “that which is cause and effect is mere consciousness only. And whatever is causally established abides in consciousness.” ([MAK] 91, Dbu ma sa 56a) Therefore phenomena that appear to be real external objects like a blue-patch are not something that is distinct from the nature of the phenomenological experience of blue-patch, even so, as the material form experienced in dreams is not distinct from the dreaming experience ([MAV] 91 Dbu ma sa 79a).
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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