I had some trouble understanding where this author is coming from. I couldn't find an about me or anything of the sort on the website. Maybe I'm missing some obvious link, IDK. That's something I...
I had some trouble understanding where this author is coming from. I couldn't find an about me or anything of the sort on the website. Maybe I'm missing some obvious link, IDK. That's something I look for when I encounter extraordinary claims.
There is a brief “about me” at the bottom of this page. David Chapman writes some interesting stuff, but he also writes a lot and all his websites are incomplete. I’m not sure what you’re seeing...
There is a brief “about me” at the bottom of this page.
David Chapman writes some interesting stuff, but he also writes a lot and all his websites are incomplete.
I’m not sure what you’re seeing as an extraordinary claim in this article but I would take it as making arguments about the philosophy of science. (It seems philosophical to me even though Chapman has a dim view of philosophy.)
I followed another link to this website recently. I mean, the word metarationality itself seems to point at something exceedingly ambitious. Some words he uses point towards philosophy but I don't...
I followed another link to this website recently.
I mean, the word metarationality itself seems to point at something exceedingly ambitious. Some words he uses point towards philosophy but I don't think this is supposed to be philosophy. The author, from what I can gather, makes little effort to establish credibility (why should I believe him?).
Maybe I'm just not the intended audience.
This quote certainly makes me less likely to read any further:
I have founded, managed, grown, and sold a successful biotech informatics company. That may explain a certain practical orientation, and lack of interest in philosophical theories that depend on the world being very unlike the way it appears
Well, that's a reference to nihilism, extreme skepticism, "are we really in a simulation" and stuff like that. On the other hand he's very interested in buddhism, though less in the religious and...
Well, that's a reference to nihilism, extreme skepticism, "are we really in a simulation" and stuff like that. On the other hand he's very interested in buddhism, though less in the religious and spiritual aspects of it.
I think he overestimates his interest in practicality; much of his writing isn't all that practical and is very high-theory.
I'm a fan of his writing because he writes interesting things, not because I consider him an authority. I find his writing at least as interesting as most philosophers.
I had some trouble understanding where this author is coming from. I couldn't find an about me or anything of the sort on the website. Maybe I'm missing some obvious link, IDK. That's something I look for when I encounter extraordinary claims.
There is a brief “about me” at the bottom of this page.
David Chapman writes some interesting stuff, but he also writes a lot and all his websites are incomplete.
I’m not sure what you’re seeing as an extraordinary claim in this article but I would take it as making arguments about the philosophy of science. (It seems philosophical to me even though Chapman has a dim view of philosophy.)
I followed another link to this website recently.
I mean, the word metarationality itself seems to point at something exceedingly ambitious. Some words he uses point towards philosophy but I don't think this is supposed to be philosophy. The author, from what I can gather, makes little effort to establish credibility (why should I believe him?).
Maybe I'm just not the intended audience.
This quote certainly makes me less likely to read any further:
Well, that's a reference to nihilism, extreme skepticism, "are we really in a simulation" and stuff like that. On the other hand he's very interested in buddhism, though less in the religious and spiritual aspects of it.
I think he overestimates his interest in practicality; much of his writing isn't all that practical and is very high-theory.
I'm a fan of his writing because he writes interesting things, not because I consider him an authority. I find his writing at least as interesting as most philosophers.