DAVID CHALMERS VS KARL FRISTON
▸ WHERE THEY SHARPLY DISAGREED
The three dimensions on which David Chalmers and Karl Friston are farthest apart on Mull's 0–10 scale.
- Mystical ReceptivityΔ 2 / 10David Chalmers: 5/10Karl Friston: 3/10
somewhat (2/10): David Chalmers is more open to mystical or apophatic depths; Karl Friston stays within what reason can name.
- Theoretical DriveΔ 2 / 10David Chalmers: 10/10Karl Friston: 8/10
somewhat (2/10): David Chalmers pursues understanding for its own sake; Karl Friston is more interested in what understanding is for.
- Embodied SensibilityΔ 2 / 10David Chalmers: 4/10Karl Friston: 6/10
somewhat (2/10): Karl Friston trusts the body and the senses; David Chalmers is more dualist or sceptical of them.
▸ WHERE THEY OVERLAPPED
Where the gap is smallest — both with meaningful presence on the dimension (not "neither cared").
- Self as Illusiongap 0 / 10David Chalmers: 5/10Karl Friston: 5/10
Both register moderate self as illusion.
- Universalist Impulsegap 0 / 10David Chalmers: 5/10Karl Friston: 5/10
Both register moderate universalist impulse.
- Sovereign Selfgap 0 / 10David Chalmers: 5/10Karl Friston: 5/10
Both register moderate sovereign self.
▸ ALL 16 DIMENSIONS
The full vector comparison. Bars show their 0–10 scores side-by-side.
- Ascetic TendencyΔ 0
- Communal EmbeddednessΔ 0
- Embodied SensibilityΔ 2
- Mystical ReceptivityΔ 2
- Practical OrientationΔ 1
- Reverence for TraditionΔ 1
- Self as IllusionΔ 0
- Skeptical ReflexΔ 0
- Sovereign SelfΔ 0
- Theoretical DriveΔ 2
- Trust in ExperienceΔ 1
- Trust in ReasonΔ 1
- Tragic VisionΔ 1
- Universalist ImpulseΔ 0
- Vital AffirmationΔ 0
- Will to PowerΔ 1