Issues with Other Frameworks

Before we actually talk about the advantages of Input Theory, let’s briefly deconstruct existing metaphysical frameworks. People often cite logical inconsistencies present within them, but I think there is an easier way to show that they are at least not as metaphysically certain as their proponents claim: plausible scenarios in which they are false. Theism and Materialism, for example, despite being usually pitted against each other, share one such scenario. What if our senses, for one reason or another, do not convey metaphysically true information? This is plausible, not only because of illusions and inaccurate recall that we often experience, but also because we believe that there are people whose senses are indeed conveying incorrect information. Namely, mentally insane or deluded people.

Then who is to say that we are not, ourselves, such people? This does not mean that theistic and materialistic frameworks are false, merely that they can be false, and that means we cannot determine the claims made within these frameworks to be certainly true. Idealism and dualism are frameworks that are quite a bit more difficult to find a counterexample to. But I think something like a simulation hypothesis works just fine. If our experiences are simulated, then minds do not exist, in the idealistic or dualistic sense. There are a few other grand metaphysical frameworks that exist, but these are less popular, and so I will not discuss them here.

There are, however, issues with these frameworks, beyond the existence of plausible scenarios that disprove them. I will list them here briefly. Materialism has to contend with the existence of apparent consciousness and the existence of natural and logical laws. Idealism, on the other hand, has to contend with the exceptional predictive power of the material world hypothesis. Dualism has to explain what connects the two worlds together. Theism has to explain the incongruence of supernatural claims, where we do not have experiences of supernatural events occurring.

Finally, these frameworks struggle with explaining other, less directly related philosophical issues. The apparent existence of morality, meaning, logical paradoxes, and justification for belief. They also often struggle to guide resolutions to social and economic issues or to explain other social and personal phenomena incongruent with the frameworks. The goal of Input Theory is not just to create a coherent framework but to address these issues and give normative ethical positions on these issues. But there is a lot of work that needs to be done, because Input Theory has one ginormous weakness: it is very, very unorthodox.