I find epistemic idealism to be correct but metaphysical idealism (and whatever the hell Donald Hoffman calls himself) incorrect.
I think that subjectivity is our epistemic primary, but more complex epistemological frameworks emerge out of that epistemic primary. For example, "I think therefore I am" is primary, but then from that subjectivity we discover a variety of epistemic tools - sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste, and other types of sensing. These different epistemological tools can be used in tandem to help triangulate upon an external objective reality. When our eyes tell us that something is there, but our sense of touch disconfirms it, we know we have experiences a hallucination - a failure in our sense of vision. Because of this system of tools, we can build and test models of reality.
Similarly, we can begin to share our models of reality with other people, and a collective of humans becomes a meta-framework for collective epistemology. As nodes in a network we share both confirmatory and disconfirmatory information so that the entire group has a more accurate model of reality. Essentially science is born out of this process.
If metaphysical idealism was true, none of the above would work. How can you track and predict an external reality if an external reality doesn't exist? There is no reason why a collective dream world should predictably follow objective laws of physics. The only way to make metaphysical idealism make sense is to inject all of the properties of an objective reality back into that subjective reality.... Someone please bring in Occam's razor!
RELATED: