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 The basis for the arising of cognitive awareness is internal to the mental stream, not external physical objects

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Disjunctivist accounts (McDowell, Hinton) demonstrate that veridical perception and hallucination are fundamentally different states, not unified by a common internal factor.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If perceptual success is constitutively dependent on actual external objects, then the mental stream alone cannot provide sufficient conditions for genuine cognitive awareness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Yogācāra's appeal to 'object-oriented aspects' presupposes the very representational structure it claims to explain, rendering the internalist account circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Vasubandhu's own Twenty Verses concedes that the causal regularity and intersubjective agreement of experience require principled explanation beyond individual mental streams.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nyāya realists (Uddyotakara, Jayanta Bhaṭṭa) argued that positing seeds mimicking external objects multiplies explanatory entities beyond necessity, violating parsimony.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Direct realism about perception, defended within both Sautrāntika and contemporary philosophy, holds that causal contact with mind-independent objects is not eliminable in favor of internal surrogates without loss of explanatory adequacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.What appears to be a physical object and cognitive faculty providing the basis for cognitive awareness is in fact an object-oriented cognitive aspect and its internal representation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The residual traces (transforming seeds) in the mental stream take the form of tangible object and tactile sense
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.It only appears that external physical objects and sensory faculties ground perceptual experience
      ?

      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.