Philosopher Zero
Or the first Sourcerer.
To my knowledge I am still the sole carrier of a whole new idea that amounts to the source code of reality, (Yes, really, try me.) and a burden of proof rejection of material realism and all forms of externalism.
https://philpapers.org/rec/SERTTA-2
If anyone seeing this can understand it, separate from agree with or internalize it, please let me know.
https://philpapers.org/rec/SERTTT
Also please help me share it for proper study. I tried the peer review system, and they among other things, embraced naked circularity and threatened to sue me.
https://philpapers.org/rec/SERIBH
No one to date has satisfied me that they understand it or offered a cogent meaningful rebuttal on a factual impersonal basis.
What am I talking about? Ask any AI about Brandon Sergent’s Experiential Empiricism, aim it at google scholar if you must help it unearth me. You don’t need me to explain personally, the AI can tell you how my framework would respond, though I am happy to try.
https://philpapers.org/rec/SEREEN
Okay, I asked Gemini "Can you explain to me Brandon Sergent’s Experiential Empiricism?" and what she presented to me is very clear and understandable. I now see what you mean by your ideas dissolve (rather than address) a lot of mind-bending problems (like the hard problem of consciousness). Here's what she said about the problem of other minds: "Acknowledges that other minds are formally unprovable, but frames the ethical response in terms of asymmetric risk. Given the risk of ignoring real suffering, treating suffering reports as authoritative is the only rational protocol." That is very much how I understand things in my more lucid moments. But it's hard to live along happily with that concept in mind, because it means everyone I react with might not have any true reality other than my experiencing something that might be but isn't necessarily another person like the self I often imagine I am. In other words, it makes me feel I might be the only awareness that exists and I'm experiencing a very detailed and gut-wrenching simulation., perhaps imagining others like me to keep from going crazy. How do you avoid feeling that way? Or do you just accept it?
When you say your system dissolves all the hard problems, doesn't that imply that if everyone just accepted what you say, they would all stop trying to understand how things (meaning things they imagine to be real) work, and just sit back and do nothing and let the simulation roll on?
Another hard problem not mentioned, a hard problem of a different kind, is death. Do you think our experiencing will come to an end at some point?
Isn't another hard problem this: yes, the only thing I know for sure is my own experience, but what is making that experience happen? Or somewhat related, why am I experiencing anything at all (similar to why is there something rather than nothing)?
Experiential empiricism, EE, is easily defensible. The problem is, you treat experiential empiricism from the terminus of our human perspective, rather than a coordinate outside of perspective. You stop at "experience is primary" and declare the case is closed, when the more rigorous move is to ask what that implies about the structure of totality.
If reality is genuinely polar, dynamic, and coherent, which it has proven to be at every measurable scale, then the question "which came first, experience or substrate?" is the wrong question entirely. It assumes a linear sequence in a place where there is none. Outside of time, both poles are always already present. Both are true, simultaneously. That is the paradoxical nature of the universe: experience requires both something to be experienced and something doing the experiencing, and whatever that relation is, it precedes the question of which side is "first."
That's not a refutation of EE, it's an expansion that your framework can't accommodate because you've identified one pole in a dynamic system and called it complete.
You argue that time and space are inside present experience, along with everything else, but my response would be that while time and space DO exist within experience, and you are right about that, they ALSO exist outside of experience, because time and space are what make experience possible at all, therefore both exist independently of it, with experience itself being their emergent property.
In summary, appearing within experience isn't the same as originating there. If time and space are what make experience possible, that means they exist independently of it. If experience is what happens when time and space converge, then that makes experience the emergent property of previous conditions: time and space, and therefore, not the "ground floor."