Executive summary: The author explores the idea of “ontological cluelessness”—the possibility that humanity’s current categories and frameworks for understanding reality are fundamentally inadequate—and argues it is a live hypothesis worth tracking, even if its practical implications are unclear.
Key points:
Definition: Ontological cluelessness is the condition of not yet having the right conceptual frameworks to make sense of the cosmos; current tools like science, religion, and philosophy may only represent a local maximum of understanding.
Strength levels: Weaker versions assume some concepts (e.g., knowledge) remain valid, while the strongest version calls into question all categories, including the concept of a concept.
Distinctions: Unlike radical skepticism, pyrrhonism, or mysticism, this stance does not deny knowledge’s possibility, require suspension of judgment, or privilege spiritual insight—it simply allows for deeper unknowns.
Ontological cluing: Escaping cluelessness could involve adding new categories, fully replacing current ones, or a “secret third option”; such cluing may or may not be recognizable or communicable.
Historical precedents: Past conceptual breakthroughs like causality, abstraction, mathematics, and religious shifts could count as earlier resolutions of ontological cluelessness.
Likelihood & implications: The author tentatively assigns ~30% probability to humanity being ontologically clueless, noting our evolutionary history did not select for philosophical accuracy; practically, the stance encourages openness to radically new frameworks without immediate action steps.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The author explores the idea of “ontological cluelessness”—the possibility that humanity’s current categories and frameworks for understanding reality are fundamentally inadequate—and argues it is a live hypothesis worth tracking, even if its practical implications are unclear.
Key points:
Definition: Ontological cluelessness is the condition of not yet having the right conceptual frameworks to make sense of the cosmos; current tools like science, religion, and philosophy may only represent a local maximum of understanding.
Strength levels: Weaker versions assume some concepts (e.g., knowledge) remain valid, while the strongest version calls into question all categories, including the concept of a concept.
Distinctions: Unlike radical skepticism, pyrrhonism, or mysticism, this stance does not deny knowledge’s possibility, require suspension of judgment, or privilege spiritual insight—it simply allows for deeper unknowns.
Ontological cluing: Escaping cluelessness could involve adding new categories, fully replacing current ones, or a “secret third option”; such cluing may or may not be recognizable or communicable.
Historical precedents: Past conceptual breakthroughs like causality, abstraction, mathematics, and religious shifts could count as earlier resolutions of ontological cluelessness.
Likelihood & implications: The author tentatively assigns ~30% probability to humanity being ontologically clueless, noting our evolutionary history did not select for philosophical accuracy; practically, the stance encourages openness to radically new frameworks without immediate action steps.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.