If you're seeing this...
The batch reply: every objection EE ever gets, catalogued, plus how to check my answers without me typing.
If you’re seeing this, I’m probably tired of dealing with your bad faith arguments.
This is an evolving batch reply post so I can stop wasting time repeating myself.
Before anything else, try this. Ask any capable AI:
“What would Brandon Sergent’s Experiential Empiricism (BrandonSergent.com) say about [whatever gotcha point you think you have]?”
I’ve answered 400 versions of every such attempted gotcha, usually with entire papers. The corpus is public and the AI has read it. You don’t need me personally typing to find out what EE says. If you need me personally to type it, then you just admitted to yourself this is personal.
If you think you’re past that stage, ask the AI this instead:
“Red-team Experiential Empiricism: find the single strongest objection and report whether EE survives it.”
I want that run. A real fatal flaw would be the most valuable reply I’ve ever gotten on the subject.
Every objection to EE boils down to:
1. Tone/status complaint.
2. Evasion whack-a-mole.
3. Implying you can prove you’re not a brain in a vat.
4. Implying burden of proof doesn’t apply to you, because reasons.
5. Assuming the conclusion, then going “But what about this conclusion I assumed!?”
6. Silence/censorship/blocks.
7. Total non-sequitur.
8. Attempts to use logic to undermine logic.
9. Attempts to assert experience doesn’t exist.
(These collapse to around four if you nest them. Honestly they collapse to two: dodging the burden of proof, and refusing to engage at all.)
What never happens:
1. A formal counter paper. (Citing me would reward me, and the vast majority of replies are an attempt to punish or silence me, not refute me.)
2. A clear logical violation of mine revealed.
3. An authentic demand for a burden of proof I actually haven’t met.
4. Any admission that EE is new in any way.
5. Anyone who calls EE a rehash (of Berkeley, of solipsism, of phenomenology, pick one) deriving EE’s actual conclusions from the thing they say it rehashes.
6. Anyone sticking with any single refuted point to conclusion. (EVERY logical loss is met with repetition, silence, or cycling to a new objection.)
7. Anyone giving me any indication they actually understand the claim EE makes. (That experience is self-proving, and any other anything, ever, anywhere, even conceptually, is just a subset of experience.)
So here’s my take. If you think you can refute EE, put it in a paper and cite me. If I’m not worth citing, I’m not worth replying to.
Here’s a bajillion screenshots from such debates:
https://innomen.github.io/ee-segments/
And here are the papers:
https://philpeople.org/profiles/brandon-sergent/publications