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
    Witnessing consciousness is self-illuminating and does no... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Witnessing consciousness is self-illuminating and does not require a second cognition to be known

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.If a primary cognition requires a second apperceptive cognition to be known, then that second cognition would require a third, and so on without end
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An infinite regress of cognitions would mean no perception could ever be known
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A vicious infinite regress is unacceptable as an explanation of cognition
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Higher-order thought theories (Rosenthal) demonstrate that a mental state becomes conscious only when accompanied by a suitable higher-order representation of it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The regress objection assumes each higher-order cognition must itself be conscious, but HOT theory requires only that the higher-order state represent the first-order state, not that it be independently conscious.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the infinite regress is blocked without positing self-illumination, undermining the primary motivation for the self-luminosity thesis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dignāga and Dharmakīrti's Buddhist epistemology posits svasaṃvedana (self-awareness) as a functional reflexive property of individual cognitions, not of a permanent witnessing consciousness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If momentary cognitions can be self-presenting without any underlying persistent witness, the self-illumination argument establishes reflexivity but not the existence of a unitary, unchanging witnessing consciousness Śaṅkara requires.
      ?

      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

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A vicious infinite regress is unacceptable as an explanation of cognitionAn infinite regress of cognitions would mean no perception could ever be knownDignāga and Dharmakīrti's Buddhist epistemology posits svasaṃvedana (self-awaren...Higher-order thought theories (Rosenthal) demonstrate that a mental state become...
    +5 moreShow less
    If a primary cognition requires a second apperceptive cognition to be known, the...If momentary cognitions can be self-presenting without any underlying persistent...Self-illumination of witnessing consciousness accounts for the immediacy of cogn...The regress objection assumes each higher-order cognition must itself be conscio...Therefore the infinite regress is blocked without positing self-illumination, un...

    Similar

    Self-illumination of witnessing consciousness accounts for the immedia...86%Witnessing consciousness is the subject of knowing, not an object of k...84%Nyāya holds that a second cognition is required to illumine the first ...82%When consciousness has no objects to illumine, no intentional experien...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: shankara
    View source passageHide passage
    Śaṅkara repudiates rival philosophies such as the Nyāya school which rejects witnessing consciousness and self-illumination in favor of other-illumination (paraprakāśa)—a thesis more akin to contemporary higher order theories. Nyāya argues that a second cognition is required to illumine the first. Śaṅkara’s basic counter-critique is that if a primary cognition requires a second apperceptive cognition to be known, then the second would require a third, etc., leading to a vicious infinite regressi
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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