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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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