Shawn Manuel
banner
shwnmnl.bsky.social
Shawn Manuel
@shwnmnl.bsky.social
ψ/AI PhD Student @ Université de Montréal || Hacker || Metacognizer || Exploring qualia space computationally
shwnmnl.github.io
this is just a quick riff on what struck me personally, so i highly encourage giving it a listen as the entire episode felt like a tour de force in epistemic humility, something i’d like to emulate
October 24, 2025 at 12:18 PM
megan ends w the fact that phil/sci doesnt happen in a vacuum – its a social enterprise, which resonates w some thoughts ive had about the possibility of discovering the ultimate nature of reality without being able to convince other people (spoiler: i dont think its possible/meaningful)
put simply (perhaps too simply) any sigils or scribbles we take to be “objective” proof of a claim will ultimately be revealed as such only in their capacity for “fittedness” with individual/collective subjective experiences
October 24, 2025 at 12:18 PM
in my own musings on Consciousness, i’ve similarly been curious abt the possibility of axing certain “isms” but keeping others, like physicalism, albeit with some caveats
(warning, blatant speculation in attached image)
October 24, 2025 at 12:18 PM
for instance, physics may well be a useful framework for understanding many phenomena, but may not be an ideal lever at all levels of analysis, or as lauren puts it:
“depending on your explanatory target of interest, the factors that give you control might be at a higher scale”
October 24, 2025 at 12:18 PM
i also enjoyed hearing lauren caution against reductionism, while still carving out a place for a kind of physicalism that doesn’t exaggerate its place on the explanatory continuum
October 24, 2025 at 12:18 PM
i like to think of myself as a philosophically interested scientist-in-training (with still a lot to learn!) so it was validating to hear her perspective that interdisciplinarity shouldnt *just* happen between two people from different fields
October 24, 2025 at 12:18 PM
as well as her defense of bridge-building as not only a worthwhile endeavor, but a legitimate and necessary kind of expertise to cultivate
October 24, 2025 at 12:18 PM
i enjoyed hearing abt megan’s collaboration w someone outside of her field and w whom she was able to converge on a common “problem shape” despite differences in lower-level details, as an example to follow for younger sciences;
October 24, 2025 at 12:18 PM
somehow this isn’t persuasive to many people, what gives?
the fact that this conclusion is deeply scientifically unsexy is also something im wrestling with, but i dont think its irreconcilable with scientific practice, just a bit paradigmatically uncomfortable atm (though winds may be changing)
October 7, 2025 at 9:53 PM
i’ve heard materialism justified through an appeal to the “historically winning team”, but then how do we get exhaustive quantitative accounts of fundamentally qualitative things? the Qt stuff exists to index Ql regularities, so idk how the map can ever become the territory
im trying to take very seriously that there is no 3rd person objective perspective (“view from nowhere”) that would truly rid me of the fundamentally subjective reasons for wanting one in the first place (ie wanting is subjective)
October 7, 2025 at 9:53 PM
very interesting episode, thanks. as someone who’s been flirting with idealism, im curious what lines of argumentation you feel are most compelling when discussing these issues w materialist colleagues? @evanthompson.bsky.social
drawing out my “phenomenology first” view

to be explanatory and useful, any claim ultimately has to cache out in terms consistent with our individual and collective subjective experiences

🧵
October 7, 2025 at 9:53 PM
would love to lend a hand as open-ended verbal reports + LLMs is in my wheelhouse. can share some ideas in DMs.
August 20, 2025 at 3:06 PM