Principle 1's definition of perception is too broad, because it entails that every awareness is perceptual.

Perception

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

0 reasons for

1 reason against

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

1.Principle 1 defines perception in terms of production by sensory connection.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Every awareness is produced by the instrumentality of the inner sense faculty (manas).
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.If production by manas counts as sensory connection, then every awareness qualifies as perceptual under Principle 1.
?
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.

Source

AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid

SEP: early-modern-india

View source passage

Gaṅgeśa criticises Principle 1 on three grounds: (a) it entails that every awareness is perceptual since every awareness is produced by the instrumentality of the ‘inner’ sense faculty or manas; (b) it fails to include divine perception, which involves no sensory connection; and (c) there is no one type of sensory connection, nor anything obviously in common to the ad hoc list of six types. Gaṅgeśa therefore offers a new definition:

Extraction notes

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

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 1 (0 for, 1 against)
Edits: 1 edit