Contact David

I invite emails for purposes of scholarly/intellectual discussion and inquiries regarding speaking engagements, invited papers, editing, advising, and paid book reviews.  Spammers, on the other hand, can expect the full wrath of a philosopher-king.

4 responses to “Contact David

  1. Dear M. Milliern,

    I enjoyed reading your review of Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction by Susan J. Blackmore, 2005 on the Amazon site.

    Clearly we share an interest in Machine consciousness and its implications.

    I would love to send you a complimentary copy of a book titled The Creation of a Conscious Machine that I published recently:

    This book is part of an ongoing project to define, design and implement a conscious machine (see: . It sums the first step in this process: requirements and specifications. I am currently working on the blueprint (or system design) that follows.

    You will find that the definition of consciousness as an observable characteristic that is independent of inner states, is quite different from what you have encountered. It is also more concrete. Nevertheless, its disucssion brings a number of interesting and original philosophical insights.

    Send me your mailing address and I will be happy to send you, with no obligations on your part, a copy for your consideration

    Sinrcerely, JETardy

    • Dear Dr. Tardy,

      Yes, I do enjoy considering the possibilities, technical details, and implications of machine consciousness. In general, I see this subject area as one of the major areas where physics and philosophy need to do a better job of converging, so that tangible results might be seen. That you propose a more concrete definition, based on inner states, intrigues me. I would gladly read your work. Expect an e-mail from me, supposing you have not already received it.

      David W. Milliern

  2. Dear Dr. Milliern,
    The most important issue in philosophy today, in my opinion, is the development of a proper onto-epistemic stance. The greatest problem is the lack of an appropriate non-binary, non-propositional logic of processes. I have suggested such a logic in my book, /Logic in Reality/, Springer, Dordrecht, 2008 and elsewhere. I would like to exchange ideas directly with you on this subject, if you wish. Among other things, my logic tends to avoid absolute positions: ontology does not have to be /totally/ flat.
    For an interesting onto-epistemic position, cf. Diaz Nafria and Zimmermann, “Emergence and Evolution of Meaning” in triple-C 11:13-35, 2013. Best regards.

    • Dear Dr. Brenner,

      I do not yet have my PhD, I am a graduate student at Indiana University Bloomington’s Department of History and Philosophy if Science, specializing in philosophy of physics. Please call me ‘David’. Thanks for your comment. I am familiar with your book, but I have not read it. In fact, it will take me a little while to read it, because I am currently working a reading project in loop quantum gravity, but I would greatly enjoy discussing and exchanging ideas about the onto-epistemic stance. I also believe it is among the most important philosophical issues, and, in my reading, I have been surprised by the lack of formal and rigorous treatment the topic has received. I will have time to read “Emergence and Evolution of Meanings” this weekend, and I can tell you that the quote from Heraclitus, “The way up and the way down are one and the same,” in this context, greatly intrigues me.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s