Feb 10, 2023·edited Feb 10, 2023Liked by Garrett Kincaid
Great piece, Garrett! I really enjoyed reading this. I've got some reflecting to do -- and if I may, I'd like to do that in the comment section here.
I just clicked through to your article on "the duality of the light and heavy". There's a lot of great food for thought. Recently, on the theoretical side of things, I've found myself exploring the freedom of being able to explore various ideas related to the logic and philosophy of science afforded to me by my position at UMSL. In exploring this freedom I've felt a deep tension between different parts of my worldview. For instance, I reject central tenets of mainstream computationalist views of mind and matter, but recognize the deep epistemic power of computability theory.
In these domains I feel the Icarus-ian (if I may) draw towards rejecting mainstream views about the relationship between computation, physics, and philosophy of science. Such flights of fancy give me the sense that I'm able to "disobey" the traditional methods and commitments of philosophers of science and lean towards (potentially) revolutionary interpretations of the relationship between computation, physics, and philosophy of science.
Yet, at the same time, there's a certain inevitability that I foresee in my investigations towards the precise relationship between the physical world and computation. The further I get into these investigations, the more I find myself conceding to the mainstream views of things. However, by making such concessions I feel like I'm carving out a new perspective on the relationship between physics, computation, and philosophy of science. Here, I think is where the Oedipus-Type in me is coming out. By making certain (dare I say fated) concessions to the mainstream view, I'm able to find a unique space for my own creativity.
It has truly been a humbling experience to try to find this middle way that you reference. I relate to this sentiment in the following way. In pursuing the path of research, I've found that, at times, I'm too hard-headed about a certain conclusion and seek evidence for the conclusion that I believed to be true, rather than what's more likely to be _actually_ true. In such a pursuit, I find myself frustrated time and time again. I'm not able to find coherent justifications for my beliefs in the form that I think that they can, and will take. It has only been in giving up certain commitments that I'm finding myself a perspective that I think is genuinely novel, meaningful, and insightful.
Apologies for the potentially off-topic rant. I appreciate the space for reflection along these lines. Keep up the great work, Garrett!
Very well written.
Great piece, Garrett! I really enjoyed reading this. I've got some reflecting to do -- and if I may, I'd like to do that in the comment section here.
I just clicked through to your article on "the duality of the light and heavy". There's a lot of great food for thought. Recently, on the theoretical side of things, I've found myself exploring the freedom of being able to explore various ideas related to the logic and philosophy of science afforded to me by my position at UMSL. In exploring this freedom I've felt a deep tension between different parts of my worldview. For instance, I reject central tenets of mainstream computationalist views of mind and matter, but recognize the deep epistemic power of computability theory.
In these domains I feel the Icarus-ian (if I may) draw towards rejecting mainstream views about the relationship between computation, physics, and philosophy of science. Such flights of fancy give me the sense that I'm able to "disobey" the traditional methods and commitments of philosophers of science and lean towards (potentially) revolutionary interpretations of the relationship between computation, physics, and philosophy of science.
Yet, at the same time, there's a certain inevitability that I foresee in my investigations towards the precise relationship between the physical world and computation. The further I get into these investigations, the more I find myself conceding to the mainstream views of things. However, by making such concessions I feel like I'm carving out a new perspective on the relationship between physics, computation, and philosophy of science. Here, I think is where the Oedipus-Type in me is coming out. By making certain (dare I say fated) concessions to the mainstream view, I'm able to find a unique space for my own creativity.
It has truly been a humbling experience to try to find this middle way that you reference. I relate to this sentiment in the following way. In pursuing the path of research, I've found that, at times, I'm too hard-headed about a certain conclusion and seek evidence for the conclusion that I believed to be true, rather than what's more likely to be _actually_ true. In such a pursuit, I find myself frustrated time and time again. I'm not able to find coherent justifications for my beliefs in the form that I think that they can, and will take. It has only been in giving up certain commitments that I'm finding myself a perspective that I think is genuinely novel, meaningful, and insightful.
Apologies for the potentially off-topic rant. I appreciate the space for reflection along these lines. Keep up the great work, Garrett!