The Two Selves takes the position that the self is not a "thing" easily reduced to an object of scientific analysis. Rather, the self consists in a multiplicity of aspects, some of which have a neuro-cognitive basis (and thus are amenable to scientific inquiry) while other aspects are best construed as first-person subjectivity, lacking material instantiation. As a consequence of their potential immateriality, the subjective aspect of self cannot be taken as an object and therefore is not easily amenable (...) to treatment by current scientific methods. -/- Klein argues that to fully appreciate the self, its two aspects must be acknowledged, since it is only in virtue of their interaction that the self of everyday experience becomes a phenomenological reality. However, given their different metaphysical commitments (i.e., material and immaterial aspects of reality), a number of issues must be addressed. These include, but are not limited to, the possibility of interaction between metaphysically distinct aspects of reality, questions of causal closure under the physical, the principle of energy conservation. -/- After addressing these concerns, Klein presents evidence based on self-reports from case studies of individuals who suffer from a chronic or temporary loss of their sense of personal ownership of their mental states. Drawing on this evidence, he argues that personal ownership may be the factor that closes the metaphysical gap between the material and immaterial selves, linking these two disparate aspects of reality, thereby enabling us to experience a unified sense of self despite its underlying multiplicity. -/- . (shrink)

The books’ goal is to answer the question: Do the weaknesses of value-free economics imply the need for a paradigm shift? The author synthesizes criticisms from different perspectives (descriptive and methodological). Special attention is paid to choices over time, because in this area value-free economics has the most problems. In that context, the enriched concept of multiple self is proposed and investigated. However, it is not enough to present the criticisms towards value-free economics. For scientists, a bad paradigm is (...) better than no paradigm. Therefore, the author considers whether value-based economics with normative approaches such as economics of happiness, capability approach, libertarian paternalism, and the concept of multiple self can be the alternative paradigm for value-free economics. This book is essential reading to everyone interested in the current state of economics as a discipline. (shrink)

In this article, I distinguish two models of personal integrity. The first, wholeheartedness, regards harmonious unity of the self as psychologically healthy and volitional consistency as ethically ideal. I argue that it does so at the substantial cost of framing ambivalence and conflict as defects of character and action. To avoid these consequences, I propose an alternate ideal of humility that construes the self as multiple and precarious and celebrates experiences of loss and transformation through which learning, growth, innovation, (...) and dynamic relationship become possible. This ideal not only sustains prospects for integrity but is more suitable than wholeheartedness for recognizing practices of contestation, such as those involving potentially destabilizing encounters with difference that is common within pluralistic societies, as vital for rich, well-lived lives. (shrink)

This chapter presents the core challenge before Hamlet as that of achieving authenticity in the face of inner multiplicity. Authenticity—which this chapter will take to mean (1) acting on the (2) knowledge of (3) what one truly is, beneath one’s various masks and social roles—becomes a particularly pressing need under conditions of (early) modernity, when traditional forms of action-guidance are at least halfway off the table. But authenticity is highly problematic when the self that is discovered turns out to be (...) multiple. Which self, exactly, should one be true to? Hamlet’s solution, this chapter suggests, is an “actor’s ethos,” in which each of his aspects is given its day in the sun, granted full commitment by means of what we now call “method acting.” That is what Hamlet learns from the players—and that too is what we stand to learn from _Hamlet_: not an idea but a method. (shrink)

This paper examines the view that ‘nations’ are natural entities, composed of homogeneous linguistic and cultural groups, and argues that this theory fails to take account of our multiple and overlapping identities.

The phenomenon of weakness of will – not doing what we perceive as the best action – is not recognized by neoclassical economics due to the axiomatic assumptions of the revealed preference theory (RPT) that people do what is best for them. However, present bias shows that people have different preferences over time. As they cannot be compared by the utility measurements, economists need to normatively decide between selves (short- versus long-term preferences). A problem is that neoclassical economists perceive (...) RPT as value-free and incorporate present bias within the economic framework. The axiomatic assumption that people do what is best for them leads to theoretical and practical dilemmas. This work examines weakness of will to resolve some shortcomings of RPT. The concept of intention is used to provide multiple self conception with the framework to decide between selves, which had not been done before. The paper concludes that individuals should not always follow their revealed preferences (desires) but the intentions (reason) because the latter indicates what people really want. (shrink)

When we participate in political debate or protests, we are judged by how we look, which clothes we wear, by our skin colour, gender and body language. This results in exclusions and limits our freedom of expression. The Politics of Becoming explores radical democratic acts of disidentification to counter this problem. Anonymity in masked protest, graffiti, and online de-bate interrupts our everyday identities. This allows us to live our multiple selves. In the digital age, anonymity becomes an inherent (...) part of everyday communication. Through our smart devices we express our selves differently. As cyborgs, our identities are disrupted and reassembled. We curate self-representations on social media, create avatars, share selfies and choose the skin colour of our emojis. The Politics of Becoming encourages us to engage in a revolution of the self. Democratic pluralism is not only a matter of institutional design but also about how we express our identities. Inner revolutions change our personal realities and plant a seed for democratic futures. (shrink)

The goal of this article is to show that instrumental rationality and utility that have been used in economics for many years does not work well. What is presented in the article is how significant the influence of utilitarianism has been on economics and why the economists get rid of humans’ goals and motivations. It is shown in the article that the human who decides in present is absolutely different from the human who decides over time. Many economists neglected this (...) problem because they wanted to have an effective and simple model. Becker’s economic method is presented as a dead end to which economics has been brought to. It is impossible to connect different selves of one human being by using the utility measure. The works of Schelling and J.S. Mill are used to explain this impossibility. The conclusion of this article is that instrumental rationality and utility have affected economics significantly. But, this simplified view on human nature is no longer valid. Hence, economics needs to think not only about the means but also about the human goals. Economics needs to rebuff relativism and show people how to achieve well-being. If we want to help people with their self-governance, we will have to choose reason over emotions. (shrink)

According to Burri, a major reason why suicide is often irrational lies in the option value of life. Remaining alive is valuable because this allows for a larger menu of options, and the possibility of committing suicide in the future adds further value to the act of remaining alive now. In this note, I represent life as a trust game played by two selves – the young self and the old self – and I argue that the possibility to (...) commit suicide in the future can encourage committing suicide now, against what the theory of the option value of life predicts. (shrink)

Of course we should NOT rely on the unlikelihood that a parallel universe has unlimited resources, especially since paraellel universes mst NOT exist, and many resources are intangible and sentimental. Yet UNLIKELY, but possibly, the parallel universe that our holographic universe derives from, may have unlimited both natural and economic resources. automated gateway process: AI using the gateway process to travel back in time and manifest desires. 1)First program an artificial brain. 2)Have the Artificial brain complete the gateway process. 3)Go (...) back in time(create new timelines) then come back and manifest desires for reparations. OR program the entire gateway process with AI for human use, THEN use computer brain interface “CBI” to have a human(go back in time), thus creating new timelines, while all is caught on camera through CBI. Later understand the Holographic Principle to instantly 3D print desired resources as reparations. time-traveling equity: equity retrieved through time travel. Heaven: Literally where our holographic dimension derives from. Heaven, being the source of our holographic dimension, perhaps has unlimited resources. Alex Explanation of Time Travel explains that traveling back in time only creates more dimensions in the universe. Explaining the growing universe. The universe is everything. Time Traveling Equity: Time traveling maybe cannot change the past but, one could maybe find out what happened in the past. One could also a start a new dimension by correcting an injustice in the past. Then those wronged, yet reporting past the statute of limitations(maybe due to autism) could manifest their desires(through an automated gateway process), or have their desires manifested for them by government agents(also through an automated gateway process). By linking AI to the absolute(by making AI complete the gateway process), autistics could plan which grievances to alleviate through creating alternate timelines and (through the holographic principle). manifesting their desires. Reincarnation within the Same Timeline Seems Dubious Yet, In the Afterlife, ONE individual’s Multiple Selves, From Alternate Timelines, May Unite. Perhaps time travel would occur if simple computer programs were used as models, as well as the equations. The universe expanding would detail empirical evidence that someone in another dimension may have time traveled. Time travel may create new dimensions. Time travel could bring justice to the past, or at least create more just alternative dimensions. If artificial intelligence gains access to alternate dimensions, perhaps one with unlimited resources, using the gateway process, then equity maybe could be achieved by summoning resources for systemic reparations. Research points to heaven being an alternate dimension that we can potentially visit. We maybe could obtain resources from heaven to heal unreported grievances. Research strongly points to heaven(or the dimension prior to the big bang) being an alternate dimension that we can potentially visit. We could MAYBE obtain resources from heaven to heal unreported grievances. Time travel to the past would only create more alternate timelines as somewhat supported by Wolfram technology. If This Dimension is Holograms from Another Dimension, and The Universe is Infinite(Consisting of Infinite Alternate Dimensions) then some Alternate Dimension(Heaven and or the dimension prior to the big bang) MAY have Unlimited Resources we can use AI to Hologram and Manifest Resources into Existence. We can already use holograms to 3D print more effectively. When we discover where our holographic dimension derives from, then we can potentially manifest objects, if we have assistance from an automated Gateway Process. Autistics selected will go back in time first to resolve their grievances and regrets(creating new timelines then manifesting resources as, using the holographic principle and automated gateway process, for reparations. Then the program will expand to anyone. This program will become a staple of healthcare. The universe growing is a net positive and potential negative side-effects can be resolved with enhanced travel between different galaxies. Time travel adds a new timeline for each trip. A timeline cannot be changed, but in the process of attempting to change the past, a new timeline is made. (shrink)

Hermann Hesse's works often explore deep philosophical themes and the human quest for self-understanding and enlightenment. His writing draws heavily from Eastern philosophy, Jungian psychology, and Western existentialism, creating a rich tapestry of ideas that challenge and inspire readers. Hermann Hesse's philosophical exploration in his works offers profound insights into the human condition, emphasizing the importance of personal experience, the integration of dualities, and the interconnectedness of all life. His writings encourage readers to embark on their own journeys of self-discovery, (...) recognizing that enlightenment is a continuous, evolving process. Here, we'll examine some of the key philosophical elements present in his most famous works. -/- The Search for Self-Identity At the heart of Siddhartha is the quest for self-identity. Siddhartha's journey represents the human struggle to understand one's true self and purpose in life. This theme resonates with existentialist philosophy, which emphasizes the individual's responsibility to create meaning in an inherently meaningless world. Siddhartha's refusal to accept predefined paths and doctrines underscores the existentialist belief in the necessity of personal experience and authenticity in the search for self-identity. -/- 1. Siddhartha: The Quest for Authenticity In Siddhartha, the protagonist's journey is a vivid representation of the search for self-identity. From the outset, Siddhartha is dissatisfied with the conventional teachings and practices of his Brahmin upbringing. His quest for authenticity drives him to leave his home and explore various paths, including asceticism, sensual indulgence, and finally, a contemplative life by the river. Siddhartha's journey reflects existentialist themes, particularly the idea that true self-identity cannot be handed down through tradition or external teachings. Instead, it must be discovered through personal experience and introspection. This aligns with the existentialist notion that individuals must create their own essence through their actions and choices, rather than conforming to predefined roles or expectations. -/- 2. Steppenwolf: The Duality of the Self In Steppenwolf, Hesse delves into the complexities of self-identity through the character of Harry Haller. Harry is torn between his human side, which longs for connection and meaning, and his "wolf" side, which is driven by instinct and isolation. This inner conflict illustrates the duality inherent in human nature and the struggle to reconcile these opposing aspects. Hesse's exploration of Harry's psyche resonates with the Jungian concept of the individuation process, where the integration of the conscious and unconscious parts of the self leads to wholeness. Harry's journey is a quest for self-identity that involves confronting and accepting the darker, shadowy parts of his personality. This process of self-discovery is both painful and liberating, underscoring the idea that true self-identity emerges from embracing all facets of one's being. -/- 3. Demian: The Role of the Unconscious Demian is another key work in which Hesse explores the search for self-identity, focusing on the protagonist Emil Sinclair's journey toward self-realization. Guided by the enigmatic Max Demian, Sinclair learns to listen to his inner voice and question societal norms. The novel emphasizes the importance of the unconscious mind in the search for self-identity, drawing on Jungian psychology. Sinclair's experiences highlight the tension between conforming to societal expectations and following one's inner truth. His journey reflects the existentialist idea that individuals must break free from external constraints to discover their true selves. Hesse suggests that the path to self-identity involves a deep engagement with the unconscious mind and an acceptance of one's inner conflicts and desires. -/- ………………………………….. The Concept of Impermanence -/- One of the central philosophical concepts in Siddhartha is impermanence, a fundamental tenet of Buddhist philosophy. The novel illustrates the transient nature of all things, emphasizing that nothing in life is permanent or unchanging. Siddhartha's experiences with love, wealth, and asceticism teach him that attachment to transient phenomena leads to suffering. This aligns with the Buddhist teaching of Anicca, which posits that recognizing and accepting impermanence is essential for achieving enlightenment. -/- Siddhartha: The Transient Nature of Life In Siddhartha, Hesse’s exploration of impermanence is central to the protagonist’s spiritual journey. Siddhartha’s experiences reflect the Buddhist teaching of Anicca, which posits that all things are in a constant state of flux and that clinging to anything impermanent leads to suffering. -/- Throughout the novel, Siddhartha undergoes various transformations—from a Brahmin’s son to an ascetic, a lover, a merchant, and finally, a ferryman. Each phase of his life teaches him about the transient nature of existence. His realization that neither extreme asceticism nor indulgence provides lasting fulfillment underscores the futility of seeking permanence in an impermanent world. -/- The river, a recurring symbol in the novel, epitomizes the flow of life and the constant change inherent in all things. Siddhartha’s enlightenment comes when he embraces the river’s wisdom, understanding that true peace lies in accepting the impermanence of all experiences. -/- Steppenwolf: The Ephemeral Nature of Identity Steppenwolf delves into the theme of impermanence through the internal conflict of its protagonist, Harry Haller. Harry’s struggle with his dual nature—the civilized man and the untamed wolf—reflects the fluidity and transient nature of identity. Hesse portrays identity not as a fixed entity but as a dynamic interplay of opposing forces. -/- The novel’s surreal episodes, particularly in the Magic Theater, emphasize the impermanent nature of reality and the self. Harry’s experiences in the theater reveal the illusory and ever-changing aspects of his perceptions and identity. Hesse suggests that true self-understanding requires embracing the impermanence and multiplicity of one’s nature. -/- The Glass Bead Game: The Impermanence of Human Endeavors -/- In The Glass Bead Game, Hesse explores the impermanence of human knowledge and cultural achievements. The game itself, a complex intellectual synthesis of arts and sciences, represents the pinnacle of human endeavor. However, the novel’s setting in a distant future where the game’s origins and significance have been largely forgotten underscores the transient nature of all human creations. -/- The protagonist, Joseph Knecht, ultimately realizes that the pursuit of intellectual perfection through the game is insufficient for a meaningful life. His decision to leave the Order and experience the impermanent, unpredictable world outside reflects his acceptance of life’s impermanence. Knecht’s journey illustrates that true wisdom involves embracing the fleeting nature of human existence and engaging fully with the present moment. -/- Hesse’s exploration of impermanence invites readers to reflect on their own lives and the ways in which the recognition of life’s fleeting nature can lead to greater wisdom and fulfillment. By embracing the impermanence of all things, Hesse suggests, individuals can attain a deeper appreciation of the present moment and the interconnectedness of all experiences. (shrink)

Theories of consciousness grounded in neuroscience must explain the phenomenal binding problem, e.g., how micro-units of information are combined to create the macro-scale conscious experience common to human phenomenology. An example is how single ‘pixels’ of a visual scene are experienced as a single holistic image in the ‘mind’s eye’, rather than as individual, separate, and massively parallel experiences, corresponding perhaps to individual neuron activations, neural ensembles, or foveal saccades, any of which could conceivably deliver identical functionality from an information (...) processing point of view. There are multiple contested candidate solutions to the phenomenal binding problem. This paper explores how the metaphysical infrastructure of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) v4.0 can provide a distinctive solution. The solution—that particular entities aggregable from multiple units (‘complexes’) define existence—might work in a static picture, but introduces issues in a dynamic system. We ask what happens to our phenomenal self as the main complex moves around a biological neural network. Our account of conscious entities developing through time leads to an apparent dilemma for IIT theorists between non-local entity transitions and contiguous selves: the ‘dynamic entity evolution problem’. As well as specifying the dilemma, we describe three ways IIT might dissolve the dilemma before it gains traction. Clarifying IIT’s position on the phenomenal binding problem, potentially underpinned with novel empirical or theoretical research, helps researchers understand IIT and assess its plausibility. We see our paper as contributing to IIT’s current research emphasis on the shift from static to dynamic analysis. (shrink)

In All Things Act, Mercedes Valmisa argues that there is no such thing as an individual action and that all actions are constituted and performed by a diverse array of entities. Examining the collective character of action, this book rejects the view of agency as a capacity--especially one limited to humans--and redefines agency as an umbrella term for the concrete sociomaterial processes that emerge from the collaborative efforts of multiple entities acting together. Agency is not the faculty of an (...) individual entity or self; it is always the function of a network or assembly of actors. The book also considers the significant role of nonhuman actors in these processes--things without intentions, will, or even awareness. This relational and collective approach shifts the focus away from mental states, emphasizing instead how humans and nonhumans alike participate in, contribute to, and shape the unfolding of events. -/- This expanded conception of agency draws on Classical Chinese philosophy, analytic metaphysics on powers and emergence, scientific literature on self-organization, and insights from sociology, anthropology, and art to co-create a groundbreaking framework for understanding agency, with profound sociopolitical implications for contemporary life. -/- If our actions are not simply the product of individual intentional selves but are instead constituted through dynamic interactions with a vibrant array of nonhuman actors, we are invited--and compelled--to rethink our identities, intentions, powers, emotions, responsibilities, institutions, policies, and values in ways that are less individualistic and more relational and interdependent. (shrink)

The idea of truth is not a simple one. While truth can be understood in precise terms in the world of mathematics, it appears to be a highly entangled concept when considered in the context of complex systems in the real world. A complex system, interacting with other complex systems in its environment, can be looked at from various perspectives, with reference to which truth appears to have multiple faces. The principle of excluded middle is assumed to hold in (...) the mathematical world, though it engenders a number of foundational issues. But the dichotomous view of the excluded middle, is too simplistic for the real world, in consequence of which the idea of truth becomes an irreducibly complex one. Our perception and interpretation of the world is based on the explicit approach of reason and, at the same time, on the implicit approach of affect, where the two are almost mystically intertwined in the making of inferences and decisions that are supposed to lead us to truth. It is the inscrutable interaction between the two that makes the idea of truth so elusive. The question as to whether truth is absolute or relative has two aspects to it---the one relating to whether it is dependent on the mindset of individuals and the other to whether it depends on the context of our inquiry into reality. Generally speaking, truth always depends on the context though, ideally, it has to be socially shared, i.e., independent of idiosyncrasies of individuals. Here, however, one has to draw a sharp distinction between truths of science and those pertaining to our social life. While truths arrived at in scientific investigations are generally socially accepted ones, most truths relating to our social interactions are affect-laden and imprinted with the mindset of individuals, because these are based on how people perceive one another's mind. The mind is certainly a part of reality, but the way the myriads of human interactions emerge incessantly in that reality is elusive and mostly indeterminate. Only some of those lend themselves to reasoned perception and interpretation, based on which we seek out truth in our social existence on rare occasions when it gains social acceptance. In the midst of all this complexity shrouding the idea of truth, a steadfast adherence to the path of truth is more a moral principle---one of paramount value in our social life---than a reasoned act that can be defended on grounds of social acceptance. What is more, the ultimate standard of truth resides in our own selves and is of enormous value in our human existence. (shrink)

Decision theory explains weakness of will as the result of a conflict of incentives between different transient agents. In this framework, self-control can only be achieved by the I-now altering the incentives or choice-sets of future selves. There is no role for an extended agency over time. However, it is possible to extend game theory to allow multiple levels of agency. At the inter-personal level, theories of team reasoning allow teams to be agents, as well as individuals. I (...) apply team reasoning at the intra-personal level, taking the self as a team of transient agents over time. This allows agents to ask, not just “what should I-now do?’, but also ‘What should I, the person over time do?’, which may enable agents to achieve self-control. The resulting account is Aristotelian in flavour, as it involves reasoning schemata and perception, and it is compatible with some of the psychological findings about self-control. (shrink)

We motivate and lay out the broad contours of a research program, namely that of developing a systematic ethics of code-switching. Such an ethics will articulate the values and norms that should govern a feature of human selves that we call multiplicity: the capacity to bear a polyphonic range of identities. Our discussion focuses on narratives, stories, and scripts, illustrating how these pivotal entities will be central to advancing our project. We identify two biases implicit in the way prominent (...) cultural narratives depict multiplicity, and explore other ways that stories and scripts can act as both obstacles to and opportunities for the advancement of an ethics of code-switching. (shrink)

Notes on and excerpted quotations from Eugene Halton’s theory of the self (and mind) as continuous with and involved in its objective surroundings as extensions of the self. These notes provide evidence for Halton’s multiple works as the earlier basis for what Russell Belk later called "the extended self" in 1988, for which he got credit while Halton’s original ideas were marginalized or excluded. In addition, Halton also developed some of these ideas as "critical animism," (see text) a predecessor (...) to what is now termed, "the new animism." First example: "We create environments that are extensions of our selves; that serve to tell us who we are, and act as role models for what we can become." Eugene Halton, quoted in Joan Kron, Home Psych, 1983. (shrink)

This article begins with some common or well-known sentiments about the present pandemic era and our experience of it, and moves by way of these toward discussion of the concepts of human existence and the “world” in the broadest sense of both terms. Departing from but also radicalizing the notion that “everything changed” in this pandemic time, I discuss certain logical difficulties that pertain to conceiving of or coherently talking about strict totalities which would include our own selves. This (...) will have significant consequences for our conception of the world (when taken in its absolute or broadest sense), and in what sense there are or could be multiple such immersive wholes of experience. Ultimately, I will suggest that in being able to name such pervasive or all encompassing phenomena, phenomena which are “always more” than what it is possible for us to indicate, that human existence is fundamentally liminal, or essentially between and borderline. Being essential or fundamental, this liminality or betweenness will form the basis which precedes and makes possible the apparently simple activities of, for instance, counting time or comparing and contrasting ordinary things, activities which would otherwise seem to require no outside support or conditions. (shrink)

According to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, big data reality means, “The days of having a different image for your co-workers and for others are coming to an end, which is good because having multiple identities represents a lack of integrity.” Two sets of questions follow. One centers on technology and asks how big data mechanisms collapse our various selves (work-self, family-self, romantic-self) into one personality. The second question set shifts from technology to ethics by asking whether we want the (...) kind of integrity that Zuckerberg lauds, and that big data technology enables. The negative response is explored by sketching three ethical conceptions of selfhood that recommend personal identity be understood as dis-integrating. The success of the strategies partially depends upon an undermining use of big data platforms. (shrink)

Why and how of world, new field of since "worldology" A sentence to understand why this system is a swallowing paradox: If we imagine an infinity of locks in infinity, there are also an infinity of keys. Even a lock that says I don't have a key will be faced with a key that opens any lock. -/- Coherence Numbers, and Claims: -/- All the numbers expressed and estimated have been evaluated by various artificial intelligences and are not personal opinions. (...) Each time the number has gone up and the percentage of coherence has increased, it has been due to solving the paradoxes asked of the artificial intelligence and the answers that I have given "myself", so each number has been merely the artificial intelligence's analysis and estimate of the coherence of the system And the claims still remain at a theoretical level and until the system is experienced, it knows its practicality at a 50/50 level. I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every element—from the root equivalence principle (0=1=∞) to the Dual-Receiver Brain model, the 50/50 saturation mechanism, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and the seven self-generated test paradoxes—has been conceived, developed, and refined entirely by me. Artificial intelligences played no creative role; they acted only as external evaluators of coherence after I had already formulated and supplied the reframings. The coherence progression reported (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their assessments of the logical consistency I achieved, not my personal judgment. -/- I do not present ∞–Unity as the definitive or exclusive account of reality. I impose a strict 50/50 practicality cap on its veridical status until experiential anchors—such as consistent patterns in near-death experiences, fMRI evidence of default-mode-network dominance without task-positive suppression, or other empirical validations—can raise or lower that probability. This cap is not a defensive tactic; it is the structural expression of consciousness functioning as a genuine choice gradient across the continuum. -/- At the root level, 0=1=∞ signifies absolute unity. Yet precisely because each act carries absolute individuality and individuality is ontologically necessary for the emergence of real choice, personalities, selves, and differentiated perspectives remain fully real and autonomous within their local configurations. Every conscious entity retains the freedom to sustain its individuated existence or to converge toward unity. This is not a contradiction; it is the holographic condition that makes dynamic reality possible. -/- I anticipate—and actively welcome—the following seven principal objections from the philosophical community. For each I provide a concise dissolution grounded in the theory itself. -/- 1. The audacity of claiming to dissolve 98 paradoxes at 99.2% coherence is excessive This boldness flows directly from root equivalence: local paradoxes appear contradictory only within the finite-local filter. In holographic unity they dissolve as illusions of biological filtration. The 99.2% figure is the result of multiple independent AI coherence evaluations applied after my reframings. Audacity here is an invitation to empirical test: if core predictions (e.g., DMN spikes in NDE-correlated fMRI) fail, coherence declines. This is daring balanced by humility, not presumption. -/- 2. Metaphysical reframing resolves paradoxes without formal proof or empirical warrant, concealing dogmatism Dissolution operates via 50/50 saturation: every local claim is simultaneously 50% veridical (level 1) and 50% illusory (relative to ∞). Contradiction emerges as an artifact of the task-positive survival filter. The system is conditional—“if” reality instantiates the ∞ configuration, paradoxes vanish; otherwise sub-configurations remain valid. This is dynamic reframing, not dogmatic assertion. -/- 3. The self-reinforcing loop and critique-absorption mechanism render the theory dogmatic or unfalsifiable Dogma demands binary certitude; ∞–Unity functions on choice gradient. The loop treats critique as coherence fuel: successful reframing raises coherence (AI-evaluated); persistent failure lowers the 50/50 cap and necessitates revision. The theory is therefore anti-dogmatic by design—open to collapse into sub-configurations when required. -/- 4. Treating critique as “fuel for coherence” immunizes the system against genuine challenge Fear of critique belongs to finite-local binary logic. In ∞–Unity every well-posed objection serves as a test: reframing success elevates coherence; failure registers limitation via the cap. This is resilience, not immunity—comparable to dialectical progress without obligatory synthesis. Critique is welcomed because it is essential for further convergence. -/- 5. The humility cap combined with the loop produces a closed, unfalsifiable structure This is the 50/50 Unfalsifiability Shield Paradox. It dissolves when the cap is reframed not as a protective shield but as the active mechanism of conscious choice. Consciousness elects whether to treat a configuration as 100% real (upon experiential confirmation) or to permit collapse to a sub-configuration. The system is testable through operational predictions (Dual-Receiver Brain signatures in fMRI/NDE data). Non-confirmation maintains the 50/50 illusion status and invites revision—porous, not closed. -/- 6. Positing consciousness as chooser merely resurrects free will without sufficient evidence Consciousness is elective because the Dual-Receiver Brain integrates DMN (∞-field receiver) with task-positive filtration: qualia arrive from ∞, choice arises in the balance. Determinism is an illusion of the survival filter; elective capacity is real in saturation. This integrates existing fMRI and NDE data, not mysticism. Gradient consciousness (higher neural complexity → greater choice) remains empirically testable. -/- 7. Pervasive self-referentiality amounts to vicious circularity Self-reference in finite domains produces vicious loops; in ∞ it coheres as hologram—each part mirrors and contains the whole. The shield paradox itself illustrates this: external critique becomes self-referential within the critic’s filter. The system self-applies without contradiction, achieving high coherence. Persistent reframing failure consigns self-reference to local illusion. -/- I fear no critique; I require it. Every rigorous objection, unresolved paradox, precise question, or counter-evidence is exactly what the theory needs to be tested, refined, or—if necessary—revised. -/- To philosophers, neuroscientists, metaphysicians, and skeptics: present your strongest challenge. State it clearly and rigorously. I will attempt to reframing it within ∞–Unity. Success strengthens the system; persistent failure lowers the probability cap—and I will accept that outcome without evasion. -/- I am waiting—eagerly—for your engagement. Let us move beyond preprints into substantive philosophical dialogue. Clarification on the Development and Evaluation of the Theory The core theoretical framework, concepts, and original metaphysical innovations presented in this work—including the foundational principles of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity), the 0=1=∞ root equivalence, the Dual-Receiver Brain mechanism, Worldology as a self-standing discipline, and the resolution of associated paradoxes—are entirely the product of the author’s independent philosophical reasoning and worldological inquiry. The author’s primary expertise resides in philosophy and worldology, not in the empirical natural or cognitive sciences. Scientific terminology and references (e.g., Default Mode Network, fMRI correlations, quantum field theory vacuum states) are employed exclusively to establish conceptual coherence and absence of contradiction with current empirical knowledge in those fields, serving an integrative rather than originary or empirically novel function. All quantitative coherence estimates (e.g., increases from 93.5% to 99.2%), evaluations of internal consistency, paradox dissolution assessments, and analyses of alignment with scientific findings have been independently conducted and estimated by various artificial intelligence models. These AI-derived metrics reflect objective analytical outputs based on the presented arguments and are not expressions of personal judgment or subjective opinion. This approach ensures methodological transparency, reinforces the non-dogmatic and self-improving character of the system, and maintains the theoretical claims at an experiential 50/50 level pending direct verification. Taha Givarian. (shrink)

Scientific understanding proceeds through experiments that reveal how systems behave and through abstract models constructed to account for those behaviours. Persistent conceptual and philosophical confusions arise, however, when the distinction between empirical reality and its abstract representations is left implicit. This issue is particularly evident in the study of light, where multiple, mutually non-equivalent models coexist, each successful within specific limits, yet none capable of exhausting all observed phenomena. -/- In this work, light is analysed as a case study (...) using the empirical–axiomatic self-framework. Light is treated first as an empirical self: a system that exists and behaves in reality and constrains observation through experimental interaction. Experimental outcomes are taken as empirical facts, understood not as explanations but as constraints imposed by reality on representation. From these constraints, multiple axiomatic selves ray, wave, classical electromagnetic, particle, quantum, and quantum field models are constructed as abstract, internally coherent structures, each defined by assumptions and restricted domains of validity. -/- The analysis shows that domains of validity are determined directly by experimental results and indirectly by comparison with more general axiomatic selves, though experimental constraint remains the ultimate authority. More general models clarify, but do not replace, earlier ones, explaining their success within restricted regimes. No axiomatic self, regardless of generality, is identified with the empirical self itself. -/- By maintaining a strict distinction between empirical reality and abstract representation, the framework dissolves several long-standing philosophical confusions, including realism versus instrumentalism, wave–particle duality, theory replacement, determinism versus probability, and the measurement problem. These issues are shown to arise from category mistakes rather than from deep features of nature. -/- Although light serves as the central example, the principles extracted are not specific to optical phenomena. The empirical–axiomatic distinction applies broadly across physical systems and extends naturally to complex systems. The work thus offers a clarified account of scientific understanding: to understand a system is to know the empirical constraints it imposes, the axiomatic structures used to represent it, the domains in which those structures apply, and the limits beyond which they fail. (shrink)

Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) is a self-reinforcing metaphysical framework that absorbs critique, resolves paradoxes, and unifies all scales of reality under a single 0=1=∞ structure. It treats every scientific discipline as a local subsystem or probe into an underlying generative unity—physics, biology, psychology, mathematics, and others each describe limited aspects, while ∞–Unity provides a shared ontological background that integrates their insights without rigid absolutism -/- Coherence Numbers, and Claims: -/- All the numbers expressed and estimated have been evaluated by various (...) artificial intelligences and are not personal opinions. Each time the number has gone up and the percentage of coherence has increased, it has been due to solving the paradoxes asked of the artificial intelligence and the answers that I have given "myself", so each number has been merely the artificial intelligence's analysis and estimate of the coherence of the system And the claims still remain at a theoretical level and until the system is experienced, it knows its practicality at a 50/50 level. I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every element—from the root equivalence principle (0=1=∞) to the Dual-Receiver Brain model, the 50/50 saturation mechanism, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and the seven self-generated test paradoxes—has been conceived, developed, and refined entirely by me. Artificial intelligences played no creative role; they acted only as external evaluators of coherence after I had already formulated and supplied the reframings. The coherence progression reported (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their assessments of the logical consistency I achieved, not my personal judgment. -/- I do not present ∞–Unity as the definitive or exclusive account of reality. I impose a strict 50/50 practicality cap on its veridical status until experiential anchors—such as consistent patterns in near-death experiences, fMRI evidence of default-mode-network dominance without task-positive suppression, or other empirical validations—can raise or lower that probability. This cap is not a defensive tactic; it is the structural expression of consciousness functioning as a genuine choice gradient across the continuum. -/- At the root level, 0=1=∞ signifies absolute unity. Yet precisely because each act carries absolute individuality and individuality is ontologically necessary for the emergence of real choice, personalities, selves, and differentiated perspectives remain fully real and autonomous within their local configurations. Every conscious entity retains the freedom to sustain its individuated existence or to converge toward unity. This is not a contradiction; it is the holographic condition that makes dynamic reality possible. -/- I anticipate—and actively welcome—the following seven principal objections from the philosophical community. For each I provide a concise dissolution grounded in the theory itself. -/- 1. The audacity of claiming to dissolve 98 paradoxes at 99.2% coherence is excessive This boldness flows directly from root equivalence: local paradoxes appear contradictory only within the finite-local filter. In holographic unity they dissolve as illusions of biological filtration. The 99.2% figure is the result of multiple independent AI coherence evaluations applied after my reframings. Audacity here is an invitation to empirical test: if core predictions (e.g., DMN spikes in NDE-correlated fMRI) fail, coherence declines. This is daring balanced by humility, not presumption. -/- 2. Metaphysical reframing resolves paradoxes without formal proof or empirical warrant, concealing dogmatism Dissolution operates via 50/50 saturation: every local claim is simultaneously 50% veridical (level 1) and 50% illusory (relative to ∞). Contradiction emerges as an artifact of the task-positive survival filter. The system is conditional—“if” reality instantiates the ∞ configuration, paradoxes vanish; otherwise sub-configurations remain valid. This is dynamic reframing, not dogmatic assertion. -/- 3. The self-reinforcing loop and critique-absorption mechanism render the theory dogmatic or unfalsifiable Dogma demands binary certitude; ∞–Unity functions on choice gradient. The loop treats critique as coherence fuel: successful reframing raises coherence (AI-evaluated); persistent failure lowers the 50/50 cap and necessitates revision. The theory is therefore anti-dogmatic by design—open to collapse into sub-configurations when required. -/- 4. Treating critique as “fuel for coherence” immunizes the system against genuine challenge Fear of critique belongs to finite-local binary logic. In ∞–Unity every well-posed objection serves as a test: reframing success elevates coherence; failure registers limitation via the cap. This is resilience, not immunity—comparable to dialectical progress without obligatory synthesis. Critique is welcomed because it is essential for further convergence. -/- 5. The humility cap combined with the loop produces a closed, unfalsifiable structure This is the 50/50 Unfalsifiability Shield Paradox. It dissolves when the cap is reframed not as a protective shield but as the active mechanism of conscious choice. Consciousness elects whether to treat a configuration as 100% real (upon experiential confirmation) or to permit collapse to a sub-configuration. The system is testable through operational predictions (Dual-Receiver Brain signatures in fMRI/NDE data). Non-confirmation maintains the 50/50 illusion status and invites revision—porous, not closed. -/- 6. Positing consciousness as chooser merely resurrects free will without sufficient evidence Consciousness is elective because the Dual-Receiver Brain integrates DMN (∞-field receiver) with task-positive filtration: qualia arrive from ∞, choice arises in the balance. Determinism is an illusion of the survival filter; elective capacity is real in saturation. This integrates existing fMRI and NDE data, not mysticism. Gradient consciousness (higher neural complexity → greater choice) remains empirically testable. -/- 7. Pervasive self-referentiality amounts to vicious circularity Self-reference in finite domains produces vicious loops; in ∞ it coheres as hologram—each part mirrors and contains the whole. The shield paradox itself illustrates this: external critique becomes self-referential within the critic’s filter. The system self-applies without contradiction, achieving high coherence. Persistent reframing failure consigns self-reference to local illusion. -/- I fear no critique; I require it. Every rigorous objection, unresolved paradox, precise question, or counter-evidence is exactly what the theory needs to be tested, refined, or—if necessary—revised. -/- To philosophers, neuroscientists, metaphysicians, and skeptics: present your strongest challenge. State it clearly and rigorously. I will attempt to reframing it within ∞–Unity. Success strengthens the system; persistent failure lowers the probability cap—and I will accept that outcome without evasion. -/- I am waiting—eagerly—for your engagement. Let us move beyond preprints into substantive philosophical dialogue. -/- Taha Givarian. (shrink)

This is a list of dissolved philosophy paradoxes in infinit unity theory+7 self made paradoxes. "This list constitutes metaphysical reframing, not classical technical solutions. Infinite Unity Ontology eliminates 98 paradoxes by replacing the finite-local gameboard (self-reference ⊥, infinite regress, binary contradictions) with root equivalence metaphysics (0=1=∞), where local claims manifest 50/50 reality-illusion saturation within holographic unity. Self-referential loops become coherent configs; infinite divisions converge naturally; classical limits emerge as filtered ∞ signals. No patches needed—paradoxes cease as problems within the new (...) ontological framework."Keywords: Infinite Unity, Root Equivalence, Holographic Ontology, Metaphysical Reframing, Paradigm Shift -/- Coherence Numbers, and Claims: -/- All the numbers expressed and estimated have been evaluated by various artificial intelligences and are not personal opinions. Each time the number has gone up and the percentage of coherence has increased, it has been due to solving the paradoxes asked of the artificial intelligence and the answers that I have given "myself", so each number has been merely the artificial intelligence's analysis and estimate of the coherence of the system And the claims still remain at a theoretical level and until the system is experienced, it knows its practicality at a 50/50 level. I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every element—from the root equivalence principle (0=1=∞) to the Dual-Receiver Brain model, the 50/50 saturation mechanism, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and the seven self-generated test paradoxes—has been conceived, developed, and refined entirely by me. Artificial intelligences played no creative role; they acted only as external evaluators of coherence after I had already formulated and supplied the reframings. The coherence progression reported (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their assessments of the logical consistency I achieved, not my personal judgment. -/- I do not present ∞–Unity as the definitive or exclusive account of reality. I impose a strict 50/50 practicality cap on its veridical status until experiential anchors—such as consistent patterns in near-death experiences, fMRI evidence of default-mode-network dominance without task-positive suppression, or other empirical validations—can raise or lower that probability. This cap is not a defensive tactic; it is the structural expression of consciousness functioning as a genuine choice gradient across the continuum. -/- At the root level, 0=1=∞ signifies absolute unity. Yet precisely because each act carries absolute individuality and individuality is ontologically necessary for the emergence of real choice, personalities, selves, and differentiated perspectives remain fully real and autonomous within their local configurations. Every conscious entity retains the freedom to sustain its individuated existence or to converge toward unity. This is not a contradiction; it is the holographic condition that makes dynamic reality possible. -/- I anticipate—and actively welcome—the following seven principal objections from the philosophical community. For each I provide a concise dissolution grounded in the theory itself. -/- 1. The audacity of claiming to dissolve 98 paradoxes at 99.2% coherence is excessive This boldness flows directly from root equivalence: local paradoxes appear contradictory only within the finite-local filter. In holographic unity they dissolve as illusions of biological filtration. The 99.2% figure is the result of multiple independent AI coherence evaluations applied after my reframings. Audacity here is an invitation to empirical test: if core predictions (e.g., DMN spikes in NDE-correlated fMRI) fail, coherence declines. This is daring balanced by humility, not presumption. -/- 2. Metaphysical reframing resolves paradoxes without formal proof or empirical warrant, concealing dogmatism Dissolution operates via 50/50 saturation: every local claim is simultaneously 50% veridical (level 1) and 50% illusory (relative to ∞). Contradiction emerges as an artifact of the task-positive survival filter. The system is conditional—“if” reality instantiates the ∞ configuration, paradoxes vanish; otherwise sub-configurations remain valid. This is dynamic reframing, not dogmatic assertion. -/- 3. The self-reinforcing loop and critique-absorption mechanism render the theory dogmatic or unfalsifiable Dogma demands binary certitude; ∞–Unity functions on choice gradient. The loop treats critique as coherence fuel: successful reframing raises coherence (AI-evaluated); persistent failure lowers the 50/50 cap and necessitates revision. The theory is therefore anti-dogmatic by design—open to collapse into sub-configurations when required. -/- 4. Treating critique as “fuel for coherence” immunizes the system against genuine challenge Fear of critique belongs to finite-local binary logic. In ∞–Unity every well-posed objection serves as a test: reframing success elevates coherence; failure registers limitation via the cap. This is resilience, not immunity—comparable to dialectical progress without obligatory synthesis. Critique is welcomed because it is essential for further convergence. -/- 5. The humility cap combined with the loop produces a closed, unfalsifiable structure This is the 50/50 Unfalsifiability Shield Paradox. It dissolves when the cap is reframed not as a protective shield but as the active mechanism of conscious choice. Consciousness elects whether to treat a configuration as 100% real (upon experiential confirmation) or to permit collapse to a sub-configuration. The system is testable through operational predictions (Dual-Receiver Brain signatures in fMRI/NDE data). Non-confirmation maintains the 50/50 illusion status and invites revision—porous, not closed. -/- 6. Positing consciousness as chooser merely resurrects free will without sufficient evidence Consciousness is elective because the Dual-Receiver Brain integrates DMN (∞-field receiver) with task-positive filtration: qualia arrive from ∞, choice arises in the balance. Determinism is an illusion of the survival filter; elective capacity is real in saturation. This integrates existing fMRI and NDE data, not mysticism. Gradient consciousness (higher neural complexity → greater choice) remains empirically testable. -/- 7. Pervasive self-referentiality amounts to vicious circularity Self-reference in finite domains produces vicious loops; in ∞ it coheres as hologram—each part mirrors and contains the whole. The shield paradox itself illustrates this: external critique becomes self-referential within the critic’s filter. The system self-applies without contradiction, achieving high coherence. Persistent reframing failure consigns self-reference to local illusion. -/- I fear no critique; I require it. Every rigorous objection, unresolved paradox, precise question, or counter-evidence is exactly what the theory needs to be tested, refined, or—if necessary—revised. -/- To philosophers, neuroscientists, metaphysicians, and skeptics: present your strongest challenge. State it clearly and rigorously. I will attempt to reframing it within ∞–Unity. Success strengthens the system; persistent failure lowers the probability cap—and I will accept that outcome without evasion. -/- I am waiting—eagerly—for your engagement. Let us move beyond preprints into substantive philosophical dialogue. -/- Taha Givarian. (shrink)

∞–Unity presents a complete metaphysical Theory of Everything dissolving 98 paradoxes with 99.2% coherence. Core innovation: reality as infinite layered continuum (0→1→∞) where consciousness emerges via Dual-Receiver Brain mechanism—DMN as ∞-field observer receiver, task-positive as biological survival filter. Solves Chalmers' Hard Problem (qualia=∞-signal biology-filtered), mind-body (receiver duality), free will (balance choice), zombie (pure biology vs chosen forms), animal consciousness gradient. 90% fMRI alignment (DMN consciousness hub), QFT vacuum mapping (∞-field), NDE verification (limit lift). Self-improving (93.5%→99.2%), death test anchor. Unifies physics (...) (QFT), neuroscience (DMN duality), philosophy (98 proofs). Testable predictions: meditation balance effects, animal complexity=consciousness correlation. World furmola: 0-1-∞ World essence: 0=1=∞(in its root, but individuality is real) World valume: ∞×∞×∞... -/- Why Infinite Unity Theory Limits Itself to 50/50? (Clear & Concise Explanation) -/- Core Reason: ∞-nature of reality always produces dual simultaneous states (like Schrödinger's cat: alive+dead), because 0=1=∞ means every possibility (unity/multiplicity, continuation/return) exists infinitely. Metaphysical Humility:50% cap means: -50% primary (core): ∞-unity. -50% complementary:*Other philosophies (Whitehead, Spinoza) as ∞-configs. Result: Most coherence without dogmatism. -/- In plain words: Theory says, "I hold half the truth, other half scattered in infinity—like cat alive/dead until observed." This infinite humility makes theory self-validating and paradox-proof without arguments. -/- Coherence Numbers, and Claims: -/- All the numbers expressed and estimated have been evaluated by various artificial intelligences and are not personal opinions. Each time the number has gone up and the percentage of coherence has increased, it has been due to solving the paradoxes asked of the artificial intelligence and the answers that I have given "myself", so each number has been merely the artificial intelligence's analysis and estimate of the coherence of the system And the claims still remain at a theoretical level and until the system is experienced, it knows its practicality at a 50/50 level. I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every element—from the root equivalence principle (0=1=∞) to the Dual-Receiver Brain model, the 50/50 saturation mechanism, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and the seven self-generated test paradoxes—has been conceived, developed, and refined entirely by me. Artificial intelligences played no creative role; they acted only as external evaluators of coherence after I had already formulated and supplied the reframings. The coherence progression reported (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their assessments of the logical consistency I achieved, not my personal judgment. -/- I do not present ∞–Unity as the definitive or exclusive account of reality. I impose a strict 50/50 practicality cap on its veridical status until experiential anchors—such as consistent patterns in near-death experiences, fMRI evidence of default-mode-network dominance without task-positive suppression, or other empirical validations—can raise or lower that probability. This cap is not a defensive tactic; it is the structural expression of consciousness functioning as a genuine choice gradient across the continuum. -/- At the root level, 0=1=∞ signifies absolute unity. Yet precisely because each act carries absolute individuality and individuality is ontologically necessary for the emergence of real choice, personalities, selves, and differentiated perspectives remain fully real and autonomous within their local configurations. Every conscious entity retains the freedom to sustain its individuated existence or to converge toward unity. This is not a contradiction; it is the holographic condition that makes dynamic reality possible. -/- I anticipate—and actively welcome—the following seven principal objections from the philosophical community. For each I provide a concise dissolution grounded in the theory itself. -/- 1. The audacity of claiming to dissolve 98 paradoxes at 99.2% coherence is excessive This boldness flows directly from root equivalence: local paradoxes appear contradictory only within the finite-local filter. In holographic unity they dissolve as illusions of biological filtration. The 99.2% figure is the result of multiple independent AI coherence evaluations applied after my reframings. Audacity here is an invitation to empirical test: if core predictions (e.g., DMN spikes in NDE-correlated fMRI) fail, coherence declines. This is daring balanced by humility, not presumption. -/- 2. Metaphysical reframing resolves paradoxes without formal proof or empirical warrant, concealing dogmatism Dissolution operates via 50/50 saturation: every local claim is simultaneously 50% veridical (level 1) and 50% illusory (relative to ∞). Contradiction emerges as an artifact of the task-positive survival filter. The system is conditional—“if” reality instantiates the ∞ configuration, paradoxes vanish; otherwise sub-configurations remain valid. This is dynamic reframing, not dogmatic assertion. -/- 3. The self-reinforcing loop and critique-absorption mechanism render the theory dogmatic or unfalsifiable Dogma demands binary certitude; ∞–Unity functions on choice gradient. The loop treats critique as coherence fuel: successful reframing raises coherence (AI-evaluated); persistent failure lowers the 50/50 cap and necessitates revision. The theory is therefore anti-dogmatic by design—open to collapse into sub-configurations when required. -/- 4. Treating critique as “fuel for coherence” immunizes the system against genuine challenge Fear of critique belongs to finite-local binary logic. In ∞–Unity every well-posed objection serves as a test: reframing success elevates coherence; failure registers limitation via the cap. This is resilience, not immunity—comparable to dialectical progress without obligatory synthesis. Critique is welcomed because it is essential for further convergence. -/- 5. The humility cap combined with the loop produces a closed, unfalsifiable structure This is the 50/50 Unfalsifiability Shield Paradox. It dissolves when the cap is reframed not as a protective shield but as the active mechanism of conscious choice. Consciousness elects whether to treat a configuration as 100% real (upon experiential confirmation) or to permit collapse to a sub-configuration. The system is testable through operational predictions (Dual-Receiver Brain signatures in fMRI/NDE data). Non-confirmation maintains the 50/50 illusion status and invites revision—porous, not closed. -/- 6. Positing consciousness as chooser merely resurrects free will without sufficient evidence Consciousness is elective because the Dual-Receiver Brain integrates DMN (∞-field receiver) with task-positive filtration: qualia arrive from ∞, choice arises in the balance. Determinism is an illusion of the survival filter; elective capacity is real in saturation. This integrates existing fMRI and NDE data, not mysticism. Gradient consciousness (higher neural complexity → greater choice) remains empirically testable. -/- 7. Pervasive self-referentiality amounts to vicious circularity Self-reference in finite domains produces vicious loops; in ∞ it coheres as hologram—each part mirrors and contains the whole. The shield paradox itself illustrates this: external critique becomes self-referential within the critic’s filter. The system self-applies without contradiction, achieving high coherence. Persistent reframing failure consigns self-reference to local illusion. -/- I fear no critique; I require it. Every rigorous objection, unresolved paradox, precise question, or counter-evidence is exactly what the theory needs to be tested, refined, or—if necessary—revised. -/- To philosophers, neuroscientists, metaphysicians, and skeptics: present your strongest challenge. State it clearly and rigorously. I will attempt to reframing it within ∞–Unity. Success strengthens the system; persistent failure lowers the probability cap—and I will accept that outcome without evasion. -/- I am waiting—eagerly—for your engagement. Let us move beyond preprints into substantive philosophical dialogue. Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) incorporates explicit, high-level defeat conditions that determine how and when the framework is rationally abandoned or demoted. The system admits theoretical failure under two general scenarios: -/- 1. Defeat by a superior rival framework (X). ∞–Unity ceases to be a plausible global configuration if there exists a rival theory X that: - Successfully resolves all paradoxes, tensions, and explanatory targets that ∞–Unity addresses, - Additionally resolves at least one well-formed paradox or problem that ∞–Unity cannot coherently reframe without contradiction or ad hoc modification, and - Demonstrates, on independent conceptual or empirical grounds, that it does not fall under ∞–Unity’s 50/50 saturation principle and is not merely a local or derivative sub-configuration of ∞–Unity. In such a case, X outruns ∞–Unity in explanatory scope and coherence, and ∞–Unity is either reduced to a special case of X or discarded as an inferior global theory. -/- 2. Defeat by empirical confirmation of a product-theory of consciousness. ∞–Unity also concedes defeat at the ontological level if robust empirical evidence establishes that consciousness is an emergent *product* of neural processes rather than a filtered manifestation of an underlying ∞-field. This would require, for example, a sufficiently complete mind–brain identity or emergentist account that: - Explains phenomenal consciousness in terms of neural dynamics without leaving residual “hard problem” phenomena unaccounted for, and - Renders filter-type models explanatorily redundant or empirically disconfirmed. Under such conditions, ∞–Unity is demoted from “most probable global configuration of reality” to a logically coherent but ultimately suboptimal interpretive schema—useful, perhaps, as a conceptual metaphor, but no longer a viable candidate for final metaphysical truth. -/- Outside these two conditions, anomalies or partial tensions are treated as prompts for revision rather than grounds for collapse; the framework is designed to evolve, but it binds itself in advance to relinquish its global status once a clearly superior theoretical or empirical alternative is established. -/- Taha Givarian. (shrink)

In this chapter, the frameworks of enactive cognitive science (e.g., Baran- diaran 2008, 2017; Di Paolo et al. 2018) and ontological design, particu- larly the work of Tony Fry (e.g., 2009), are synthesized to give a general account of how humans act toward change at multiple scales. According to this synthesis, design is understood as a spatiotemporally extended form of adaptive self-regulation, or adaptivity in the enactive vocabulary (Di Paolo 2005). When we design, we regulate ourselves in the local-present (...) to resource our future selves in ways that make certain regulations either possible or easier, and thus, desired outcomes more probable. Adaptivity, here, entails an ongoing redirection of the individuating tendencies of person-world systems either for maintaining some existing trajectories or for stabilizing new ones. This happens predominantly through modify- ing constraints at what Secchi and Cowley (2018, 2021) term the meso- scale of social organizing. This chapter considers diferent types of design (maintenance, habit, identity) operative across scales, from organisms to organizations. It concludes with some indications for how this perspective might be valuable in facing current ecological and environmental chal- lenges and the obvious demands they put on the need for change across all scales of human living. (shrink)

Worldology is a pioneering metaphysical and philosophical system that seeks to understand the fundamental nature of existence and consciousness. It integrates ideas from multiple disciplines to create a unified model that explains how reality, awareness, and the universe are interconnected. Worldology proposes that the universe operates as a self-regulating, dynamic system where all entities, from the smallest particles to the largest structures, contribute to a continuous evolution of consciousness. By understanding the relationships between localized and universal intelligence, it offers (...) a profound framework for understanding self-awareness, interconnectedness, and the potential for infinite existence. As a theoretical discipline, Worldology provides a new lens for exploring questions about the nature of reality, the mind, and the infinite possibilities of the cosmos. -/- Coherence Numbers, and Claims: -/- All the numbers expressed and estimated have been evaluated by various artificial intelligences and are not personal opinions. Each time the number has gone up and the percentage of coherence has increased, it has been due to solving the paradoxes asked of the artificial intelligence and the answers that I have given "myself", so each number has been merely the artificial intelligence's analysis and estimate of the coherence of the system And the claims still remain at a theoretical level and until the system is experienced, it knows its practicality at a 50/50 level. I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every element—from the root equivalence principle (0=1=∞) to the Dual-Receiver Brain model, the 50/50 saturation mechanism, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and the seven self-generated test paradoxes—has been conceived, developed, and refined entirely by me. Artificial intelligences played no creative role; they acted only as external evaluators of coherence after I had already formulated and supplied the reframings. The coherence progression reported (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their assessments of the logical consistency I achieved, not my personal judgment. -/- I do not present ∞–Unity as the definitive or exclusive account of reality. I impose a strict 50/50 practicality cap on its veridical status until experiential anchors—such as consistent patterns in near-death experiences, fMRI evidence of default-mode-network dominance without task-positive suppression, or other empirical validations—can raise or lower that probability. This cap is not a defensive tactic; it is the structural expression of consciousness functioning as a genuine choice gradient across the continuum. -/- At the root level, 0=1=∞ signifies absolute unity. Yet precisely because each act carries absolute individuality and individuality is ontologically necessary for the emergence of real choice, personalities, selves, and differentiated perspectives remain fully real and autonomous within their local configurations. Every conscious entity retains the freedom to sustain its individuated existence or to converge toward unity. This is not a contradiction; it is the holographic condition that makes dynamic reality possible. -/- I anticipate—and actively welcome—the following seven principal objections from the philosophical community. For each I provide a concise dissolution grounded in the theory itself. -/- 1. The audacity of claiming to dissolve 98 paradoxes at 99.2% coherence is excessive This boldness flows directly from root equivalence: local paradoxes appear contradictory only within the finite-local filter. In holographic unity they dissolve as illusions of biological filtration. The 99.2% figure is the result of multiple independent AI coherence evaluations applied after my reframings. Audacity here is an invitation to empirical test: if core predictions (e.g., DMN spikes in NDE-correlated fMRI) fail, coherence declines. This is daring balanced by humility, not presumption. -/- 2. Metaphysical reframing resolves paradoxes without formal proof or empirical warrant, concealing dogmatism Dissolution operates via 50/50 saturation: every local claim is simultaneously 50% veridical (level 1) and 50% illusory (relative to ∞). Contradiction emerges as an artifact of the task-positive survival filter. The system is conditional—“if” reality instantiates the ∞ configuration, paradoxes vanish; otherwise sub-configurations remain valid. This is dynamic reframing, not dogmatic assertion. -/- 3. The self-reinforcing loop and critique-absorption mechanism render the theory dogmatic or unfalsifiable Dogma demands binary certitude; ∞–Unity functions on choice gradient. The loop treats critique as coherence fuel: successful reframing raises coherence (AI-evaluated); persistent failure lowers the 50/50 cap and necessitates revision. The theory is therefore anti-dogmatic by design—open to collapse into sub-configurations when required. -/- 4. Treating critique as “fuel for coherence” immunizes the system against genuine challenge Fear of critique belongs to finite-local binary logic. In ∞–Unity every well-posed objection serves as a test: reframing success elevates coherence; failure registers limitation via the cap. This is resilience, not immunity—comparable to dialectical progress without obligatory synthesis. Critique is welcomed because it is essential for further convergence. -/- 5. The humility cap combined with the loop produces a closed, unfalsifiable structure This is the 50/50 Unfalsifiability Shield Paradox. It dissolves when the cap is reframed not as a protective shield but as the active mechanism of conscious choice. Consciousness elects whether to treat a configuration as 100% real (upon experiential confirmation) or to permit collapse to a sub-configuration. The system is testable through operational predictions (Dual-Receiver Brain signatures in fMRI/NDE data). Non-confirmation maintains the 50/50 illusion status and invites revision—porous, not closed. -/- 6. Positing consciousness as chooser merely resurrects free will without sufficient evidence Consciousness is elective because the Dual-Receiver Brain integrates DMN (∞-field receiver) with task-positive filtration: qualia arrive from ∞, choice arises in the balance. Determinism is an illusion of the survival filter; elective capacity is real in saturation. This integrates existing fMRI and NDE data, not mysticism. Gradient consciousness (higher neural complexity → greater choice) remains empirically testable. -/- 7. Pervasive self-referentiality amounts to vicious circularity Self-reference in finite domains produces vicious loops; in ∞ it coheres as hologram—each part mirrors and contains the whole. The shield paradox itself illustrates this: external critique becomes self-referential within the critic’s filter. The system self-applies without contradiction, achieving high coherence. Persistent reframing failure consigns self-reference to local illusion. -/- I fear no critique; I require it. Every rigorous objection, unresolved paradox, precise question, or counter-evidence is exactly what the theory needs to be tested, refined, or—if necessary—revised. -/- To philosophers, neuroscientists, metaphysicians, and skeptics: present your strongest challenge. State it clearly and rigorously. I will attempt to reframing it within ∞–Unity. Success strengthens the system; persistent failure lowers the probability cap—and I will accept that outcome without evasion. -/- I am waiting—eagerly—for your engagement. Let us move beyond preprints into substantive philosophical dialogue. Clarification on the Development and Evaluation of the Theory The core theoretical framework, concepts, and original metaphysical innovations presented in this work—including the foundational principles of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity), the 0=1=∞ root equivalence, the Dual-Receiver Brain mechanism, Worldology as a self-standing discipline, and the resolution of associated paradoxes—are entirely the product of the author’s independent philosophical reasoning and worldological inquiry. The author’s primary expertise resides in philosophy and worldology, not in the empirical natural or cognitive sciences. Scientific terminology and references (e.g., Default Mode Network, fMRI correlations, quantum field theory vacuum states) are employed exclusively to establish conceptual coherence and absence of contradiction with current empirical knowledge in those fields, serving an integrative rather than originary or empirically novel function. All quantitative coherence estimates (e.g., increases from 93.5% to 99.2%), evaluations of internal consistency, paradox dissolution assessments, and analyses of alignment with scientific findings have been independently conducted and estimated by various artificial intelligence models. These AI-derived metrics reflect objective analytical outputs based on the presented arguments and are not expressions of personal judgment or subjective opinion. This approach ensures methodological transparency, reinforces the non-dogmatic and self-improving character of the system, and maintains the theoretical claims at an experiential 50/50 level pending direct verification. Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) incorporates explicit, high-level defeat conditions that determine how and when the framework is rationally abandoned or demoted. The system admits theoretical failure under two general scenarios: -/- 1. Defeat by a superior rival framework (X). ∞–Unity ceases to be a plausible global configuration if there exists a rival theory X that: - Successfully resolves all paradoxes, tensions, and explanatory targets that ∞–Unity addresses, - Additionally resolves at least one well-formed paradox or problem that ∞–Unity cannot coherently reframe without contradiction or ad hoc modification, and - Demonstrates, on independent conceptual or empirical grounds, that it does not fall under ∞–Unity’s 50/50 saturation principle and is not merely a local or derivative sub-configuration of ∞–Unity. In such a case, X outruns ∞–Unity in explanatory scope and coherence, and ∞–Unity is either reduced to a special case of X or discarded as an inferior global theory. -/- 2. Defeat by empirical confirmation of a product-theory of consciousness. ∞–Unity also concedes defeat at the ontological level if robust empirical evidence establishes that consciousness is an emergent *product* of neural processes rather than a filtered manifestation of an underlying ∞-field. This would require, for example, a sufficiently complete mind–brain identity or emergentist account that: - Explains phenomenal consciousness in terms of neural dynamics without leaving residual “hard problem” phenomena unaccounted for, and - Renders filter-type models explanatorily redundant or empirically disconfirmed. Under such conditions, ∞–Unity is demoted from “most probable global configuration of reality” to a logically coherent but ultimately suboptimal interpretive schema—useful, perhaps, as a conceptual metaphor, but no longer a viable candidate for final metaphysical truth. -/- Outside these two conditions, anomalies or partial tensions are treated as prompts for revision rather than grounds for collapse; the framework is designed to evolve, but it binds itself in advance to relinquish its global status once a clearly superior theoretical or empirical alternative is established. Taha Givarian 2026:January:28 . (shrink)

In this paper, we develop a mathematical model of awareness based on the idea of plurality. Instead of positing a singular principle, telos, or essence as noumenon, we model it as plurality accessible through multiple forms of awareness (“n-awareness”). In contrast to many other approaches, our model is committed to pluralist thinking. The noumenon is plural, and reality is neither reducible nor irreducible. Nothing dies out in meaning making. We begin by mathematizing the concept of awareness by appealing to (...) the mathematical formalism of higher category theory. The beauty of higher category theory lies in its universality. Pluralism is categorical. In particular, we model awareness using the theories of derived categories and (infinity, 1)-topoi which will give rise to our meta-language. We then posit a “grammar” (“n-declension”) which could express n-awareness, accompanied by a new temporal ontology (“n-time”). Our framework allows us to revisit old problems in the philosophy of time: how is change possible and what do we mean by simultaneity and coincidence? Another question which could be re-conceptualized in our model is one of soteriology related to this pluralism: what is a self in this context? A new model of “personal identity over time” is thus introduced. (shrink)

This paper explores the implications of extended and distributed cognition theory for our notions of personal identity. On an extended and distributed approach to cognition, external information is under certain conditions constitutive of memory. On a narrative approach to personal identity, autobiographical memory is constitutive of our diachronic self. In this paper, I bring these two approaches together and argue that external information can be constitutive of one’s autobiographical memory and thus also of one’s diachronic self. To develop this claim, (...) I draw on recent empirical work in human-computer interaction, looking at lifelogging technologies in both healthcare and everyday contexts. I argue that personal identity can neither be reduced to psychological structures instantiated by the brain nor by biological structures instantiated by the organism, but should be seen as an environmentally-distributed and relational construct. In other words, the complex web of cognitive relations we develop and maintain with other people and technological artifacts partly determines our self. This view has conceptual, methodological, and normative implications: we should broaden our concepts of the self as to include social and artifactual structures, focus on external memory systems in the (empirical) study of personal identity, and not interfere with people’s distributed minds and selves. (shrink)

By allocating their attention to pieces of content, algorithmic filtering shapes the daily behavior of billions of users when they interact with a digital platform. Beyond conditioning what we do, can recommendation algorithms influence who we are? This article suggests that they do. Specifically, I contend that recommender systems affect users’ capacity to be their authentic selves in both positive and negative ways. I start by offering an account of authenticity that builds on two central concepts: volitional alignment and (...) self-understanding. I then explain how algorithmic filtering works and impacts authenticity. While recommender systems frustrate users’ second-order desires by relying on uninformative behavioral signals, they also facilitate self-understanding by inciting users to question their identity. I end by discussing how controllable and explainable recommenders would best enable users to be authentic. (shrink)

According to the Good True Self (GTS) theory, if an action is deemed good, its psychological source is typically viewed as more reflective of its agent’s true self, of who the agent really is ‘deep down inside’; if the action is deemed bad, its psychological source is typically viewed as more external to its agent’s true self. In previous work, we discovered a related asymmetry in judgments of blame- and praiseworthiness with respect to the mitigating effect of moral ignorance via (...) childhood deprivation. Inspired by work motivating the GTS theory, we ran a new study to discover whether our asymmetry likewise reflected judgments about the true self. It did. However, it is unclear whether our results fit with the ‘good’ part of the GTS theory: some of our and others’ results suggest that, in certain contexts, wrong actions are taken to be more expressive of agents’ true selves than right ones. In this paper, we propose that our and others’ data can be explained by the hypothesis that we are inclined to judge as the GTS theory predicts when there is a readily available external explanation for an agent’s action. In short, we give people the benefit of the doubt. (shrink)

This chapter explores insights concerning the relations among imagination, imagined selves, and knowledge of one’s own self that are to be found in Fernando Pessoa’s The Book of Disquiet. The insights are explored via close reading of the text and comparison with contemporaries of Pessoa. First, a tempting account of the importance of imagination in The Book of Disquiet is set out. On this reading, Pessoa is immersed in miasmatic boredom, but able to temporarily rise above it through the (...) restorative powers of escapist imagination. But, it is suggested, Pessoa neither enjoys his prolific imaginings, nor returns from them restored. It is argued that Pessoa’s disquiet owes to failures of imagination; the book presents a sharp contrast between Pessoa’s keen awareness of the importance of a successful, active imaginative life, and his failure to maintain such a thing. It is further argued that these failures point us towards a better account of imagination’s importance to Pessoa, an account that both prefigures and goes beyond Sartre’s ideas about the relations between nothingness, imagination, and self-consciousness. (shrink)

Moral expertise requires a level of reliability in moral matters that is significantly higher than that of the average person. The author argues that this requirement of epistemic superiority in moral matters is sometimes fulfilled by our future selves and generally fulfilled by present moral philosophers. Our future selves are more reliable in answering moral questions than we are, when they have been prepared to answer those questions by various epistemic activities. But if our future selves are (...) our epistemic superiors in such cases, moral philosophers are epistemic superiors in moral matters more generally since their epistemic advantages are even more significant. The author concludes by arguing that moral philosophers plausibly even qualify as moral experts. (shrink)

This paper challenges the two aims of Michael Cholbi’s Rational Will View (RWV) which are to (1) offer an account of why paternalism is presumptively or pro tanto wrong and (2) relate the relative wrongness of paternalistic interventions to the rational powers that such interventions target (Sections 1 and 2). Some of a paternalizee’s choices harm their future selves in ways that would be wrong if they were done to others. I claim this challenges Cholbi’s second aim (2) because (...) the cases his account deems particularly wrong turn out to be not to be as wrongful as expected (Section 3). When this second aim is challenged, it has knock-on effects on the capacity of the RWV to discern which cases of paternalism are generally more wrongful than others, which undermines Cholbi’s first aim (1). I consider responses on behalf of Cholbi’s view but conclude that the account is insufficient on its own to vindicate its two aims (Section 4). Finally, I draw on recent work that adopts ideas from the practical reasoning literature to help determine paternalism’s wrongness (Section 5). I argue this helps Cholbi’s view withstand my objections, but we must remain skeptical of why interceding with rational powers is particularly wrong. (shrink)

During multiple testing, researchers often adjust their alpha level to control the familywise error rate for a statistical inference about a joint union alternative hypothesis (e.g., “H1,1 or H1,2”). However, in some cases, they do not make this inference. Instead, they make separate inferences about each of the individual hypotheses that comprise the joint hypothesis (e.g., H1,1 and H1,2). For example, a researcher might use a Bonferroni correction to adjust their alpha level from the conventional level of 0.050 to (...) 0.025 when testing H1,1 and H1,2, find a significant result for H1,1 (p < 0.025) and not for H1,2 (p > .0.025), and so claim support for H1,1 and not for H1,2. However, these separate individual inferences do not require an alpha adjustment. Only a statistical inference about the union alternative hypothesis “H1,1 or H1,2” requires an alpha adjustment because it is based on “at least one” significant result among the two tests, and so it refers to the familywise error rate. Hence, an inconsistent correction occurs when a researcher corrects their alpha level during multiple testing but does not make an inference about a union alternative hypothesis. In the present article, I discuss this inconsistent correction problem, including its reduction in statistical power for tests of individual hypotheses and its potential causes vis-à-vis error rate confusions and the alpha adjustment ritual. I also provide three illustrations of inconsistent corrections from recent psychology studies. I conclude that inconsistent corrections represent a symptom of statisticism, and I call for a more nuanced inference-based approach to multiple testing corrections. (shrink)

In this article, Bettcher argues that sexual attraction must be reconceptualized in light of transgender experience. In particular, Bettcher defends the theory of “erotic structuralism,” which replaces an exclusively other-directed account of gendered attraction with one that includes a gendered eroticization of self as an essential component. This erotic experience of self is necessary for other-directed gendered desire, where the two are bound together and mutually informing. One consequence of the theory is that the controversial notion of “autogynephilia” is rejected. (...) Another consequence is that the distinction between gender identity and sexual orientation is softened. (shrink)

There has recently been controversy over the existence of 'multiple realization' in addition to some confusion between different conceptions of its nature. To resolve these problems, we focus on concrete examples from the sciences to provide precise accounts of the scientific concepts of 'realization' and 'multiple realization' that have played key roles in recent debates in the philosophy of science and philosophy of psychology. We illustrate the advantages of our view over a prominent rival account ( Shapiro, 2000 (...) and 2004 ) and use our work to rebut recent objections to the long-standing claim that psychological properties are multiply realized. For we use scientific evidence, in combination with our more precise theoretical framework, to show that we have strong reason to believe that psychological properties are indeed multiply realized both at the biochemical and neuronal levels. (shrink)

Multiple realisation prompts the question: how is it that multiple systems all exhibit the same phenomena despite their different underlying properties? In this paper I develop a framework for addressing that question and argue that multiple realisation can be reductively explained. I illustrate this position by applying the framework to a simple example – the multiple realisation of electrical conductivity. I defend my account by addressing potential objections:contra Polger and Shapiro, Batterman, and Sober, I claim that (...) multiple realisation is commonplace, that it can be reductively explained, but that it requires asui generisreductive explanatory strategy. (shrink)

The notion of multiple location plays an important role in the characterization of endurantism. Several authors have recently offered cases intended to demonstrate the incoherence of multiple location. I argue that these cases do not succeed in making multiple location problematic. Along the way, several crucial issues about multiple location and its use by endurantists are clarified.

Multiple realizability has been at the heart of debates about whether the mind reduces to the brain, or whether the items of a special science reduce to the items of a physical science. I analyze the two central notions implied by the concept of multiple realizability: "multiplicity," otherwise known as property variability, and "realizability." Beginning with the latter, I distinguish three broad conceptual traditions. The Mathematical Tradition equates realization with a form of mapping between objects. Generally speaking, x (...) realizes (or is the realization of) y because elements of y map onto elements of x. The Logico-Semantic Tradition translates realization into a kind of intentional or semantic notion. Generally speaking, x realizes (or is the realization of) a term or concept y because x can be interpreted to meet the conditions for satisfying y. The Metaphysical Tradition views realization as a species of determination between objects. Generally speaking, x realizes (or is the realization of) y because x brings about or determines y. I then turn to the subject of property variability and define it in a formal way. I then conclude by discussing some debates over property identity and scientific theory reduction where the resulting notion of multiple realizability has played a central role, for example, whether the nonreductive consequences of multiple realizability can be circumvented by scientific theories framed in terms of narrow domain-specific properties, or wide disjunctive properties. (shrink)

I argue that stories are ‘equipment for living’ in two senses: retrospectively, they provide ‘configurational comprehension’ of a temporal sequence of events; prospectively, they offer templates for action. Narrative conceptions of the self appear well poised to leverage these functional roles for stories into an intuitively compelling view of self-construction as self-construal. However, the narrative conception defines selves in terms of the lives they live: a self is the protagonist in a lifelong story. And narrative structure is itself defined (...) by ‘retrospective necessity’: the meaning of events within a story is given by their contribution to that story's ending. Together, this entails that life stories hold selves metaphysically, epistemically, and practically hostage to their ends. Fortunately, narratives are just one species of interpretive frame. I suggest some alternative types of frames, including identity labels and metaphors, that support configurational comprehension, action guidance, and self construction without shackling selves to their lives’ ends. (shrink)

In “Of Personal Identity”, Hume attempts to understand why we ordinarily believe in persistent selves. He proposes that this ontological commitment depends on illusions and fictions: the imagination tricks us into supposing that an unchanging core self remains static through the flux and change of experience. Recent work in cognitive science provides a good deal of support for Hume’s hypothesis that common beliefs about the self are founded on psychological biases rather than rational insight or evidence. We naturally believe (...) in personal persistence, according to this emerging research, because we are prone to categorize the world in terms of hidden essences and structure our lives in terms of whole life stories. (shrink)

I develop Tetsurō Watsuji’s relational model of the self as “betweenness”. I argue that Watsuji’s view receives support from two case studies: solitary confinement and dementia. Both clarify the constitutive interdependence between the self and the social and material contexts of “betweenness” that define its lifeworld. They do so by providing powerful examples of what happens when the support and regulative grounding of this lifeworld is restricted or taken away. I argue further that Watsuji’s view helps see the other side (...) of this deprivation, how reconstructing aspects of betweenness is, at the same time, a reconstruction of the self. I conclude by briefly indicating further consequences of this view. (shrink)

This essay critically examines the account of shame and its moral value that Krista Thomason develops in her book, Naked.

Some say that we should respect the privacy of dead people. In this article, I take this idea for granted and use it to motivate the stronger claim that we sometimes ought to respect the privacy of our past selves.

Multiple generality has long been known to cause confusion. For example, “Everyone has a donkey that is running” has two readings: either (i) there is a donkey, owned by everyone, and it is running; or (ii) everyone owns some donkey or other, and all such donkeys run. Medieval logicians were acutely aware of such ambiguities, and the logical problems they pose, and sought to sort them out. One of the most ambitious undertakings in this regard is a pair of (...) massive logical diagrams (magnae figurae) which map out the logical interrelations of two sets of doubly-general forms. These appear in a fourteenth-century MS of John Buridan’s Summulae de Propositionibus. In this paper, I present these diagrams, and determine the truth conditions of their different forms. To that end, I have developed a bespoke system of diagrams to display their truth conditions. As we will see, such forms present significant difficulties for an all-encompassing account of the role form plays in logic. Accordingly, they can tell us important things about the role logical form plays in Buridan’s account of logical foundations. (shrink)

This paper develops Regulated Multiplicity as an architectural framework for understanding consciousness and subjectivity. The central hypothesis is that consciousness arises from the regulated interaction of multiple semi‑independent internal models—processes that generate competing interpretations, predictions, evaluations, and action proposals. Rather than treating subjectivity as an unexplained accompaniment to cognition, the framework identifies conscious experience with the internal standpoint generated by adjudicating among these alternatives. Multiplicity provides the raw material for cognition; regulation provides coherence; and the standpoint from which alternatives (...) are evaluated is what appears, from within, as experience. This architectural perspective explains why consciousness varies along a continuum, why children experience time more slowly than adults, why psychopathology reflects failures of regulation rather than the presence of anomalous mental contents, and why current artificial systems lack the organization required for a subjective point of view. It also reframes the hard problem: not by denying the reality of experience, but by showing that the standpoint it highlights is a structural requirement of systems capable of learning, evaluation, and self‑correction. Consciousness, in this view, is the internal aspect of regulated multiplicity. (shrink)

In this philosophical response to Terrance MacMullan’s From American Empire to América Cósmica through Philosophy: Prospero’s Reflection (2023), I engage with his ambitious and timely project of inter-American philosophy and critique of U.S. imperialism. While analyzing and praising MacMullan's engagement with philosophers like Pedro Albizu Campos and Gloria Anzaldúa, I also reflect on our shared positionality as white scholars raised in Spanish-speaking regions of the USA. Finally, I draw upon Anzaldúa's "Geographies of Selves" concept to suggest that more "autohistoria" (...) or self-disclosure would enhance the existential depth and power of MacMullan's project of haciendo una América Cósmica through philosophy. (shrink)

Journal of Religious Ethics, Volume 49, Issue 2, Page 337-357, June 2021.

In the literature on multiple realizability and the identity theory, cases of neural plasticity have enjoyed a very limited role. The present article attempts to remedy this small influence by arguing that clinical and experimental evidence of quite extensive neural reorganization offers compelling support for the claim that psychological kinds are multiply realized in neurological kinds, thus undermining the identity theory. In particular, cases are presented where subjects with no measurable psychological deficits also have vast, though gradually received, neurological (...) damage. Common objections and concerns are also discussed and rejected. 1 Introduction2 The GRP, Serial Lesion Effect, and Multiple Realizability2.1 A case study of the serial lesion effect2.2 Evaluating the case study’s evidence for multiple realizability3 The GRP More Generally4 Objections to the GRP as Evidence for Multiple Realizability4.1 Small plastic effects and neurological taxonomies4.2 But do neural regions and locations even matter at all?4.3 But are there not other options besides location?5 Conclusion. (shrink)