One of the philosophers is talking about the buddhist concept of "Samsara" and actually is mistaken. The mode of perception in illusion and ignorance as she describes it is actually called "Maya".
"Samsara", the term she uses, labels the buddhist concept of the cycle of reincarnation.
true, suprised she made such a poor mistake, given the concept of samsara reincarnation is so prevalent in the west. Maybe it was a slip of the tongue or poor editing.
sharethere's also another few errors in the documentary. Someone else mentions that if we look up at the sky we can't change it from blue to pink. but that is not completely true. Colour does not exist in nature, colour interestingly is a completely human mental creation.
The brain converts certain wavelengths of light to correspond to our mental concept of red, green, blue etc. The colour itself does not exist in the wavelength of light, it exists in our minds. It is this reason why colour blind people can see the same image green as red and red as green, or completely grey if they are completely colour blind like a dog.
reality seems to be a mixture of both external phenomena and internal phenomena. A kind of balancing act is being played out, between the rules of the mind and the rules of the world.
The same effect is being played out on all of our other senses, touch, sound, smell, time, thought etc. what we experience of phenomena is not the same as phenomena. We take sensory information and turn it into conscious experience, how it is done is a miracle that science can't seem to solve.
How does inanimate matter give birth to conscious awareness.
As you say, color, (and pretty much all of reality as we know it) seems to be a mixture of both external phenomena and internal phenomena. However, this does nothing to change the fact that no one can willfully change the color of the sky as it appears to them (whatever the color may be--in the case of the interviewee, and most other people, the color being blue)...
...No one is capable of doing this so far as we know.
So I'm not sure how this constitutes a "factual error".