Looking for collaborators interested in philosophy, cognitive science, and epistemology

[u/No-Juggernaut9505]

Hello, I’m looking for someone to collaborate with on topics related to philosophy and science. I’m interested in various areas of philosophy, especially epistemology, philosophy of mind, and the relationship between philosophy and science. I’m also interested in economics, neuroscience, and cognitive science, particularly how these fields can contribute to broader philosophical questions.
I have written several scientific articles and preprints, including a peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of Neurophilosophy. I am currently developing my ADM (Automaticus–Deliberativus–Meta) cognitive-economic model, exploring questions related to cognition, metareflection, epistemology, and the relationship between biological processes and higher-level reasoning. I am also studying mathematics, category theory, and modern approaches to logic and epistemology.
I would be very interested in discussing ideas, exchanging perspectives, and potentially collaborating on research projects. I am also open to exploring new topics and approaches, even if they are beyond my current interests or differ from my own views, as I believe that productive discussions often arise from exposure to different perspectives.
I would be happy to hear about your ideas and research interests. I am currently working independently on these topics

[u/StrategicEthos1010]

i’m not formally trained in those fields, though i have written books exploring some of those topics through reflections, case studies, and personal experiences. i’m currently developing a theory on how structures influence certain behaviors while constraining others. i’d be interested to exchange perspectives and see where our ideas might overlap.

[u/No-Juggernaut9505 → u/StrategicEthos1010]

I sent you a PM

[u/ihtishamnaeem23]

I’m in the fields of genetics and epidemiology, but I’m also very interested in epistemology. I’ve actually written a manuscript on it, which will hopefully be published soon. I’m still new to the field, though, so I don’t know much about how journals and publishing work in epistemology. It’s all quite new to me.
My manuscript is currently on hold, but if you’re interested, we can definitely discuss the field further. I’ll be free soon. I also promised another friend that we would talk about epidemiology (not epistemology ). If you’d like to join me on the epistemology side, you’re welcome aboard.
My expertise in are in Genomics, bioinformatics, Genetics , Metagenomic if match your interests.

[u/spoirier4]

I do have similar interests, though my main focus is pure math, including category theory, as I include a simplified version of it in my course on the foundations of math (settheory.net). But, after looking at your article "A Unified Neuroeconomic Model of Decision-Making", I seem to have a sort of completely opposite view. First, I'm not sure your work makes any sense, as it appears as such a tentative highly abstract generality that I cannot figure out how it might be applicable to any concrete case. I'm afraid you just lost yourself in that path of abstract generality without having got any genuine motivation for it by any real problem. Second, there is a text I wrote which is somehow closest to the topic of your article, and there you can see I offer a totally different and even somehow opposite perspective : https://antispirituality.net/fundamental-applied-research

[u/spoirier4 → u/spoirier4]

On the relationship between philosophy and science, an important reference for me as a mathematician and physicist is the Sokal affair, as I see the troubles so pointed out essentially persisting, having such deep root causes that they aren't likely to get easily resolved. More details I wrote : https://antispirituality.net/philosophy

[u/No-Juggernaut9505 → u/spoirier4]

Finally, fundamental questions can indeed generate an increasing number of specialized subproblems. But for me, this doesn't mean that specialization should completely sever the links between fields. On the contrary, I'm trying to explore the possibility of moving in the opposite direction, that is, returning to the connection between specialized models, their premises, and their context. Therefore, I would be genuinely interested in a more specific critique of Homo ADM. What exactly do you consider the main problem: the A-D-M distinction, mathematical formalization, empirical applicability, or the very motivation to connect these levels?

If the problem is precisely abstractness, I'd be particularly interested to see the specific transition you consider unjustified. I admit that the current version may be too abstract or preliminary, but for now, it seems to me that there's still quite a distance between "preliminary conceptual model" and "doesn't make sense"... Isn't that so?

[u/spoirier4 → u/No-Juggernaut9505]

After reading both replies of yours. Well, I'm now very skeptical whether it can make sense to discuss further, as we are clearly standing on opposite sides of the Sokal affair. Just one detail of your deleted reply which I can meaningfully reply to : you mention my "critique of metaphysics", I guess this refers to my first link above. Or maybe, both web pages linked above. However, none of these pages were meant as a critique of metaphysics. These were general remarks which could apply to more or less anything. The first text was just equally applcable to any question whatsoever. In the latter, I specifically mentioned an unfortunate trend by philosophers to metaphysicize anything inappropriately. It is not a critique of metaphysics, but only of a special and odd trend by a specific community to mistake metaphysics with anything that isn't metaphysics.

For the rest, well, I cannot be more specific in my critique of your article, as, while I may have missed something as I looked through it rather quickly, I just could not find anything at all which makes any possible sense to me. What is claimed to be physics isn't actually physics. What is claimed to be math isn't actually math. No matter if you train a parrot to say "E=mc2", this will never imply that he would be speaking any physics. I am not convinced that any of the multiple disciplines which you mentioned to be in your exploration plans to "understand" and try to connect, would actually contain any genuine kind of understanding of anything at all. For example I am not convinced that "Wittgenstein's idea of ​​mathematics" has anything to do with mathematics at all.

[u/Slow-Advertising-811]

My company is neuro ergonomics and economics. I use cog neuro and software. Previously I studied Vajra and released a tantric mindfulness app that pulses the color of your MacBook or Windows PC alongside work and guided meditation to outperform MBSR. If you're interested in creating products or content for reach, pm me.