There is something right about rationalism, and there is something right about empiricism.
There is something right about realism, and there is something right about relativism.
There is something right about internalism, and there is something right about externalism.
What I am working on is a reconciliation rather than a sysnthesis. An abandoning of false dualities in favor of an understanding of what is going on...
But it's a bit more than that, really. By sorting these things out we can acheive a better vantage point from which to investigate the world, and our own minds.
This would have been, and should have been, the subject of my dissertation. But alas, academia won't have me, or will they? Perhaps OU was just the wrong school, but what would be the right one? Where would I fit in? Who would believe in me?
4 comments:
Hey, I just read your paper, "Informationalism", which it appears you wrote in 2004. Where are you on this view of things now? Have your ideas changed substantially?
I've come to a similar view of things myself, also sort of inspired by Chalmers, and then working out from there.
So, I'm very interested in hearing how your views have evolved since 2004.
My views have evolved tremendously, but still follow the same basics that I laid out in that paper. I am a neutral monist, modal realist, and a firm believer in subjective experience. I believe that there is an intimate connection between causation and consciousness, and I plan to write a bit about that soon.
What do you think about Dust Theory (here and here), and possible connections to Boltzmann Brain type scenarios (here and here?
It seems to me that if you combine "Dust Theory" and "Boltzmann Statistical Fluctuations", then you should expect that every possible conscious experience will inevitably result. Which means that every universe that can be perceived will be perceived from every possible point of view. Not just "logically possible" universes (as in your Genuine Modal Realism paper).
Dust theory seems fairly reasonable. The Boltzmann Brain scenario seems fairly reasonable. And combining them seems fairly reasonable. But the result is pretty strange.
Any thoughts on this?
Based on the very interesting papers you had posted online earlier, I would love to see any new work.
Best regards,
- Steve Esser
Post a Comment