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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.