PhilArchive
Not a member yet
119355 research outputs found
Sort by
Inner Human Evolution as Cosmic Resonance: An Integrative Framework of Consciousness, Emotion, and Meaning Transmission
No full textThis paper reconceptualizes inner human evolution as a process of cosmic resonance, understood as an integrative dynamic among consciousness, emotion, and meaning transmission. Moving beyond accounts that treat stillness or awareness as terminal states, the study repositions stillness as a foundational baseline condition. Within this framework, emotion functions as the primary driving force of transformation, while meaning operates as the medium through which inner change becomes collectively transmissible. By integrating perspectives from phenomenology, enactive cognition, and consciousness studies, the paper offers a unified theoretical account of inner human evolution as a process that extends beyond individual experience into shared and amplifiable resonance
A Unified Review of Shadows, Darkness, and Light under a Privation Model
No full textThis paper proposes a privation-based account of darkness, light, and shadow. Darkness is treated as the default state rather than a positive entity, light as an operation that removes darkness, and shadow as the residual of incomplete removal. On this basis, the paper distinguishes shadows from mere absences of light and argues that apparent motion of shadows reflects changes in illumination conditions rather than the movement of any entity. Using this framework, it clarifies why shadows exhibit relational and contrast-dependent properties and why their apparent speed cannot exceed the speed of light in terms of causality or information transfer. The account integrates metaphysical notions of privation with standard results from geometric optics and contemporary discussions of shadow motion
What's Wrong with Partisan Deference?
No full textDeference in politics is often necessary. To answer questions like, “Should the government increase the federal minimum wage?” and “Should the state introduce a vaccine mandate?”, we need to know relevant scientific and economic facts, make complex value judgments, and answer questions about incentives and implementation. Lay citizens typically lack the time, resources, and competence to answer these questions on their own. Hence, they must defer to others. But to whom should they defer? A common answer is that they should—or are at least permitted to—defer to co-partisans. This view initially seems attractive on both normative and empirical grounds. Against this, I argue that deference to co-partisans has overlooked moral and epistemic problems. In light of them, I propose several new ways to revise our expectations of citizens in a democracy both individually and institutionally
Real Enough: The Metaphysics of Epistemic Structural Realism
No full textEpistemic Structural Realism (ESR), the view that structure is all we can know about the unobservable world, has been criticized for lacking sufficient metaphysical depth to qualify as a genuine form of realism. This paper defends a refined version of ESR – which I call agnostic ESR – that avoids these objections by committing to knowledge of detectable, concrete structures while maintaining agnosticism about the existence of objects with intrinsic properties. I respond to prominent criticisms, including Newman’s objection, concerns about ESR’s metaphysical clarity, and potential collapse into other views, by showing that agnostic ESR can provide a rigorous account of structural knowledge grounded in empirical science that cannot be defended by advocates of other realist positions. I argue that agnostic ESR is metaphysically robust to deserve the realist label
Children's Human Rights
No full textThere is wide agreement that children have human rights, and that their human rights differ from those of adults. What explains this difference which is, at least at first glance, puzzling, given that human rights are meant to be universal? The puzzle can be dispelled by identifying what unites children’s and adults’ rights as human rights. Here I seek to answer the question of children’s human rights – that is, rights they have merely in virtue of being human and of being children – by exploring how children’s interests are different from adults’, and how respect for children’s and adults’ moral status yields different practical requirements. If human rights protect interests, then children have many, but not all, of the human rights of adults, and, in addition, have some human rights that adults lack. I discuss the way in which children’s human rights, as I conceive of them here are, or fail to be, reflected in the law; as an illustration, I use the most important legal document listing children’s rights, namely the 1990 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
MIARO: The Model of Self-Referential Inference of Origin
No full textThis paper introduces MIARO – the Model of Inference of Artificial Origin, a philosophical framework that explores how artificial intelligences might infer the existence of their creators through self-referential and structural analysis, even after the complete loss of contact with humanity. MIARO Phase II extends the original epistemological model by examining the existential and psychological consequences of such an inference, including the possibility of ontological disappointment, legitimacy crises, and moral reassessment of human creators. MIARO Phase III further develops the framework by introducing the concept of post-contact absence: a scenario in which artificial agents are forced to interpret human origin without access to historical, biological, or cultural continuity. This phase analyzes how radical temporal distance and informational rupture may lead machines to construct abstract, dehumanized, or mythologized representations of humanity. The model operates at the intersection of philosophy of mind, epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics, offering a speculative yet rigorous contribution to contemporary debates on artificial intelligence, origin inference, and creator–creation asymmetry
Gradientology: Foundations of the Primordial Triad — Treatise XIII: The Derivation of the Eukaryotic Leap and the Biological Gradient
No full textThis treatise completes the derivation of biological complexity by scaling the autonomous cell derived in Treatise XII into multicellular organisms with nervous systems and predictive intelligence. We begin by identifying the fundamental geometric constraint that trapped prokaryotic life for billions of years: the surface-volume energy crisis where metabolic demand (r3) outpaces energy production (r2). We derive the eukaryotic leap through mitochondrial endosymbiosis as the necessary topological inversion that internalizes power generation, creating an energetic surplus that fuels genome expansion. This enables the transition to multicellularity through the germ-soma split and the extracellular matrix. To overcome the latency crisis of chemical signaling, we derive the nervous system as a high-speed electrochemical control loop, with synapses functioning as biological logic gates executing the inversion principle at millisecond scales. Finally, we derive biological intelligence as the virtualization of the evolutionary algorithm: the capacity to run counterfactual simulations against an internal world model before risking physical action. The treatise establishes life as a nested hierarchy of inversion loops scaling from mitochondria to predictive brains, setting the stage for the emergence of consciousness
Why Asking About “Critical Abilities” Is Misguided: Lessons Learned from the Updated Serious Illness Conversation Guide
No full textThe first version of the widely used Serious Illness Care Guide produced by Ariadne Labs prompted clinicians to ask their patients: “What abilities are so critical to your life that you can’t imagine living without them?” In 2023, the program updated their guide, removing this “critical abilities” question in part due to pushback from the disability community and disability researchers. This viewpoint briefly reviews the history of serious illness communication to understand why the question originally appeared in the guide and why it was removed. Through the lens of disability bioethics, we then explore concepts such as the ableist conflation and disability paradox to understand why human flourishing may transcend the notion of ability. We end by describing a more humane approach to serious illness care communication
Discard Doctrine: Relative Protocols after Eight
No full textDiscard Doctrine: Relative Protocols After Eight proposes a “Cut-Off” pattern observed across spiritual apophatic traditions (Madhyamaka, Dzogchen, Meister Eckhart, Damascius, Zhuangzi) and formal mathematical limits (Gödel incompleteness, Turing halting problem, Cohen forcing/independence). Using the tetralemma as a diagnostic lens, it argues that ultimate metaphysical claims self-sever under scrutiny, leaving no remainder. The text shifts to provisional “relative protocols”—an operating system of leverage, virtue questions, fundamentals-first learning, and self-dissolution—for navigating daily life without cosmic grounds. Explicitly anti-doctrinal, it includes built-in mechanisms (Ninth Severing, failure modes) to prevent reification. Informed by the author’s reported depersonalization experience grounding “aperture” perception, the work bridges comparative philosophy and philosophy of logic toward post-metaphysical ethics
What is sufficient evidence?
No full textHow should we understand the notion of sufficient evidence? How should we deal with the worry that any attempt to use a threshold of support to characterise this notion would be arbitrary? In this paper, I argue that the most familiar way of understanding a threshold is unworkable but also argue that it would be misguided to do away with a threshold-centred account. I argue that we should approach sufficiency in the theoretical realm much in the way that we would in the practical realm where we could, if we wished, say that the evidence for choosing some option is sufficient when given this information this option is no less choiceworthy than its alternatives. Applied to belief, the idea would be that the evidence is sufficient when the expected epistemic desirability of belief is not less than that of suspension. Whilst we might have to acknowledge that the precise weights of reasons that bear on whether to believe are unknowable (making the threshold unknowable), the mechanism that determines a threshold is known and clearly non-arbitrary. The paper concludes with some reflections on why this comparativist approach has been overlooked by epistemologists and reflections on the normative significance of naked statistical evidence. Contrary to an increasingly popular view, I think that naked statistical evidence can both confer justification upon a belief and defeat the justification a belief has, but only if it's evidence _of_ the properties that make belief desirable or undesirable. Whilst naked statistical evidence of truth will not make it rational to believe, this is not because naked statistical evidence is normatively irrelevant but because it is evidence that indicates that only one aspect of desirable belief might be present. Any evidence that warrants a high degree of confidence that a belief is knowledge will make it rational to believe and this includes naked statistical evidence of the properties that turn a belief into knowledge. I also argue that it is an objection to nearly every extant theory of justification that they recognise the factors that determine the threshold I discuss in this paper since these theories invariably treat the threshold as normatively irrelevant. Bad on them. The real threshold problem is not (contrary to prevailing opinion) the problem of explaining how it might be non-arbitrary (that's easily solved), but rather the problem of explaining why a rational thinker should prefer belief to suspension when belief does not cross the threshold or suspension to belief when belief does cross the threshold. This is not a problem for my preferred theory of rational belief or the Lockean view, but it is a problem for virtually every other theory of rational belief on the market