What I think About in my Research:
Ever since my undergraduate days at UCLA, I have been interested in the central question of the epistemology of modality: how can we come to know what is possible and necessary for the variety of kinds and particulars there are? Since 2000 I have been developing and defending an essentialist approach to how we can know what is metaphysically possible and necessary. On this approach metaphysical modality is distinct from logical, conceptual, and various forms physical modality, such as technological and practical modality. It is the most basic kind of modality there is. And it is in virtue of possessing knowledge of the essence of a kind or particular that one is in a position to know what is metaphysically possible and necessary for that kind or particular. In short, the more we know about the essential nature of a thing, the more we can know about what is metaphysically possible and impossible for that thing. Although we can never know all of what is essential to a thing, the increase in essentialist knowledge yields an increase in modal knowledge. In slogan form: knowing what something is, helps us know what it could and could not be.
Because of the relationship between how we know what is possible and the nature of thought experiments I have spent a substantial amount of time thinking heavily about another topic: philosophical methodology. In this area I have been developing a method of doing philosophy that uses analytic, cross-cultural, and empirical methods in combination (ACE-philosophy, for short). ACE-philosophy aims to provide one with a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, such as consciousness, knowledge, absence, inference, reasoning, intuition, or perception. Since 2005 I have been developing this methodology by working with analytic, experimental, and comparative philosophers. Since 2010 I have been pursuing a number of epistemological projects in conjunction with topics in the philosophy of mind by way of engaging in cross-cultural and multi-disciplinary philosophy, which is part of ACE-philosophy. The core idea of ACE-Philosophy is simply to combine useful tools: conceptual analysis, cross-cultural analysis, and empirical analysis.
Although the bulk of my training is in analytic philosophy since 2010 I have branched out into a field I call cross-cultural and multi-disciplinary philosophy, it is closely associated with fusion philosophy or comparative philosophy, although it is not the same. My main work in this area focuses on perception and consciousness, although I have work on a number of topics, such as intuition, inference, and postulation. With respect to perception I have defended a Nyāya informed account of disjunctivism that I call causal-disjunctivism. My goal here is to advocate for a plausible view of disjunctivism deriving from Indian philosophy that can compete with versions of disjunctivism debated in Anglo-Analytic philosophy. My main work on consciousness tries to bring contemporary debates over panpsychism in analytic philosophy into contact with panpsychism in Vedānta. Here again my goal is to advocate a version of panpsychism deriving from Indian philosophy that can compete with versions of panpsychism debated in analytic philosophy of mind. My interests in consciousness also related to the question of moral standing: in virtue of what does an entity have moral standing or belong in the sphere of moral consideration? Here I am interested in exploring the role of consciousness in the moral standing of plants, fungi, non-human animals, humans, and artificial intelligence.
Finally, I have a longstanding project in logic and critical thinking. The project has two parts. On the one hand, it is aimed at defending a form of logical pluralism about logic based on the normativity of logic, where normativity is cross-culturally investigated with respect to inference and reasoning. On the other hand, I defend the relevance of a number of Nyāya, Jain, and Buddhist conceptions of critical thinking to our current critical thinking curriculum. My interests here are tied to the role of critical thinking in the formation of a critical identity as well as democratic processes.
Ever since my undergraduate days at UCLA, I have been interested in the central question of the epistemology of modality: how can we come to know what is possible and necessary for the variety of kinds and particulars there are? Since 2000 I have been developing and defending an essentialist approach to how we can know what is metaphysically possible and necessary. On this approach metaphysical modality is distinct from logical, conceptual, and various forms physical modality, such as technological and practical modality. It is the most basic kind of modality there is. And it is in virtue of possessing knowledge of the essence of a kind or particular that one is in a position to know what is metaphysically possible and necessary for that kind or particular. In short, the more we know about the essential nature of a thing, the more we can know about what is metaphysically possible and impossible for that thing. Although we can never know all of what is essential to a thing, the increase in essentialist knowledge yields an increase in modal knowledge. In slogan form: knowing what something is, helps us know what it could and could not be.
Because of the relationship between how we know what is possible and the nature of thought experiments I have spent a substantial amount of time thinking heavily about another topic: philosophical methodology. In this area I have been developing a method of doing philosophy that uses analytic, cross-cultural, and empirical methods in combination (ACE-philosophy, for short). ACE-philosophy aims to provide one with a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, such as consciousness, knowledge, absence, inference, reasoning, intuition, or perception. Since 2005 I have been developing this methodology by working with analytic, experimental, and comparative philosophers. Since 2010 I have been pursuing a number of epistemological projects in conjunction with topics in the philosophy of mind by way of engaging in cross-cultural and multi-disciplinary philosophy, which is part of ACE-philosophy. The core idea of ACE-Philosophy is simply to combine useful tools: conceptual analysis, cross-cultural analysis, and empirical analysis.
Although the bulk of my training is in analytic philosophy since 2010 I have branched out into a field I call cross-cultural and multi-disciplinary philosophy, it is closely associated with fusion philosophy or comparative philosophy, although it is not the same. My main work in this area focuses on perception and consciousness, although I have work on a number of topics, such as intuition, inference, and postulation. With respect to perception I have defended a Nyāya informed account of disjunctivism that I call causal-disjunctivism. My goal here is to advocate for a plausible view of disjunctivism deriving from Indian philosophy that can compete with versions of disjunctivism debated in Anglo-Analytic philosophy. My main work on consciousness tries to bring contemporary debates over panpsychism in analytic philosophy into contact with panpsychism in Vedānta. Here again my goal is to advocate a version of panpsychism deriving from Indian philosophy that can compete with versions of panpsychism debated in analytic philosophy of mind. My interests in consciousness also related to the question of moral standing: in virtue of what does an entity have moral standing or belong in the sphere of moral consideration? Here I am interested in exploring the role of consciousness in the moral standing of plants, fungi, non-human animals, humans, and artificial intelligence.
Finally, I have a longstanding project in logic and critical thinking. The project has two parts. On the one hand, it is aimed at defending a form of logical pluralism about logic based on the normativity of logic, where normativity is cross-culturally investigated with respect to inference and reasoning. On the other hand, I defend the relevance of a number of Nyāya, Jain, and Buddhist conceptions of critical thinking to our current critical thinking curriculum. My interests here are tied to the role of critical thinking in the formation of a critical identity as well as democratic processes.