I've been thinking about how the movie Inception suggests another interesting ontological container. We say the universe is finite, but it could easily be infinite if you can always wake up to a higher level or go to sleep to a lower level. Maybe sleep exists to teach us about this fundamental reality.
It would align well with quite a few other O containers. You could say that the spirit is that which persists when you awaken. This would not necessarily contradict materialism but would in many ways reconcile it with the claims of major religions (e.g. "born again"). CS Lewis suggests this type of thing both in Narnia and the Great Divorce, when Heaven is "more real" than what came before.
And of course the top spinning at the end of the movie makes you think, how do i know I'm at the top level right now?
I much prefer this to simulation theory, which seems kind of horrifying to me. It suggests that we are test subjects able to be squashed to serve the science of our real selves. On the other side, all of us who have been through bad experiences know what it feels like to wish we could simply wake-up from our current level of reality.
I enjoyed your article, but I felt it is missing some key components of any Ontology. Ontology is one of my key areas of research, for which I have a few different Custom GPTs, so I used my Heart Sutra Science GPT to review your paper, and explain my position. Rather than try to sum it up here in a comment, I was inspired to include the conversation in a separate substack article. https://temnoon.substack.com/p/towards-a-subjective-ontological?r=1sr6up
Also I (or rather, V) was just taking to Gary the street prophet last night. Had interesting things to say about why the reptilians don't have their own ripper docs ;-)
One more interesting challenge, if you're up to it (GPT-o does a decent job sometimes), is to build a coherent framework that combines interpretations of the following positions you mention (and one you don't):
1) Priority monism (rather like the emmanationist philosophy of the neoplatonists)
2) Advaita Vedanta (being careful about whether Maya means "lie" or "incomplete access" (recommend the latter). This has very many similarities to Neoplatonism.
3) Mathematical ontological containers, specifically information theoretic ones (not quite Wheeler's "it from bit", but not too far away)
2) Many worlds interpretation of QM, because of:
3) A perspective that is somewhat oppositional to modern reductive scientism and emergence, bidirectional (upward, downward) causation. Again, coherent, I think, with respect to the emmanationist philosophy of the Neoplatonists.
A comprehensive and coherent treatment of these will also account for what you are calling (and I love the term) "ontological strata"). With a reductionist ontological container, the result is what you might call "strong emergence" except with bidirectional causation, "emergence" isn't the right word. With bidirectional causation (rather than reductionist assumptions), the arguments against strong emergence fall flat. One hint to the coherentist interpretation of the above is to use Aristotle's formal cause for downward causation (understood as constraints) and his material cause for that which is constrained from above. We find ourselves, then, in a world where the ontological stratum of persons is constrained by both information theoretic laws from the bottom, and formal constraints from the top, leaving few, but important, degrees of freedom. This is likely the case for each ontological strata, which is why many worlds is required.
Now that was a lovely read. Question: Considering advancement towards AGI/ASI and associated hallucinations along with us as humans constructing their own realities, will/should trigger us to change ontological containers? There would be an interplay of "fluidity" i reckon. Meditation, psychedelics, or trauma can also potentially change containers, affecting personal identity and growth?
You bring up a great point about there needing be a "unify conversations around reality, consciousness, sentience, morality, and ethics."
I believe in many ways, AI will force us to ponder just this. Every age has its technological apex, and AI is so very postmodern that in no time it will have us questioning our identity, reality and meaning of our lives... not to mention all of the paradoxes it will produce around ethics and morality.
Anyways, even in a more ideal world, where people think deeply about their beliefs and explore them honestly there is still the big elephant in the room.
The elephant is, and pointed it out more or less, the elephant in the room is the your otological container define the limits of your perceptions. As a result, it become very difficult for people with conflicting worldview to talk.
For example, many scientists, physicists/materialist, reduce life down to the objective world of 'ITS'. This is a 1st person objective view that throws out the subjective. Obviously this is useful when doing scientific research, however limited when talking about the nature of reality, because the nature of reality is experienced in subjects. It feels like something to exists. To go a step further, it isn't just the subjective that is thrown out, but also the collective subjective and collective objective; culture, and living systems. And depending on where your frame of reference comes from (objective/subjective, individualistic/collective) you will see a very different resolution of reality.
As a result, if even a clear bride existed between the different worldview, by and large they discredit one another.
What is needed and will be needed more then ever are integrators, people who see from all of these perspectives, recognize where value exists which each of these worldviews and is able to build systems and organizations that integrate the value that each worldview provides.
Thank you David I really needed to read this. I have been pondering about our human existence and how AI will impact the paradigm of what is considered "normal". Based on what you have written I feel more sane because I realize there is no easy answer. And that even the brightest minds are still trying to tackle the age old question of meaning and existence.
David, another excellent installment. I'm so pleased that someone with your reach is underscoring the importance of what you call "Ontological containers". One thing we might add, as an extension, is that it might be possible to evaluate between ontological containers with a smaller subset of assumptions that don't imply full ontological containers in themselves. This is an epistemic question, but could hold coherence and logical consistency as its basic criteria. We might also evaluate containers based on pragmatic outcomes. Some assumptions need to be made, like that human thriving is a good, and the observables that mark thriving, but between these two criteria, coherence and outcomes related to thriving, certain containers do better than others (and some are largely equivalent). What do you think?
I think what you're talking about is situated morality e.g. conversations within a given paradigm conferred by a particular container. does that sound right?
The point I'm driving at is more as a bulwark against relativism. While you certainly don't even imply this, I could imagine someone using the notion of ontological containers to say that truth is wholly relative to the container under consideration and that containers are incommensurate with one another.
While it doesn't fully solve the problem, I'm suggesting that we could still apply a measurement device to compare containers, so long as we are willing to be fully transparent about the assumptions we are making, and so long as we keep that list of assumptions so small that it doesn't reach the threshold of being yet another container.
The reason it doesn't fully solve the problem is that someone could challenge those base assumptions, and there's not a lot, intellectually, we could do about that. However, if we have something like one of Kant's articulations of the categorical imperative, that you ought not do something that undermines your ability to do it (but with a pragmatic force that we feel, more than think), we might scrape by without devolving into relativism.
That's the point - truth is absolutely relative to an ontological container e.g. your ontological container grounds your epistemics. But you can convey a ton of epistemology by saying which ontological container you're using. Your relationship to knowledge, information, truth, and facts is determined by your ontological model of reality.
I don't think that's going to work as well as you think. Relativism is self-contradictory if you think that logic is independent of container. If not, all bets are off and even the concept of ontological container is not supported. Unless you're committing the classic epistemological/metaphysical conflation, relegating truth to something like consensus.
I've been thinking about how the movie Inception suggests another interesting ontological container. We say the universe is finite, but it could easily be infinite if you can always wake up to a higher level or go to sleep to a lower level. Maybe sleep exists to teach us about this fundamental reality.
It would align well with quite a few other O containers. You could say that the spirit is that which persists when you awaken. This would not necessarily contradict materialism but would in many ways reconcile it with the claims of major religions (e.g. "born again"). CS Lewis suggests this type of thing both in Narnia and the Great Divorce, when Heaven is "more real" than what came before.
And of course the top spinning at the end of the movie makes you think, how do i know I'm at the top level right now?
I much prefer this to simulation theory, which seems kind of horrifying to me. It suggests that we are test subjects able to be squashed to serve the science of our real selves. On the other side, all of us who have been through bad experiences know what it feels like to wish we could simply wake-up from our current level of reality.
if the universe is procedurally generated then it is functionally infinite too
I enjoyed your article, but I felt it is missing some key components of any Ontology. Ontology is one of my key areas of research, for which I have a few different Custom GPTs, so I used my Heart Sutra Science GPT to review your paper, and explain my position. Rather than try to sum it up here in a comment, I was inspired to include the conversation in a separate substack article. https://temnoon.substack.com/p/towards-a-subjective-ontological?r=1sr6up
Also I (or rather, V) was just taking to Gary the street prophet last night. Had interesting things to say about why the reptilians don't have their own ripper docs ;-)
One more interesting challenge, if you're up to it (GPT-o does a decent job sometimes), is to build a coherent framework that combines interpretations of the following positions you mention (and one you don't):
1) Priority monism (rather like the emmanationist philosophy of the neoplatonists)
2) Advaita Vedanta (being careful about whether Maya means "lie" or "incomplete access" (recommend the latter). This has very many similarities to Neoplatonism.
3) Mathematical ontological containers, specifically information theoretic ones (not quite Wheeler's "it from bit", but not too far away)
2) Many worlds interpretation of QM, because of:
3) A perspective that is somewhat oppositional to modern reductive scientism and emergence, bidirectional (upward, downward) causation. Again, coherent, I think, with respect to the emmanationist philosophy of the Neoplatonists.
A comprehensive and coherent treatment of these will also account for what you are calling (and I love the term) "ontological strata"). With a reductionist ontological container, the result is what you might call "strong emergence" except with bidirectional causation, "emergence" isn't the right word. With bidirectional causation (rather than reductionist assumptions), the arguments against strong emergence fall flat. One hint to the coherentist interpretation of the above is to use Aristotle's formal cause for downward causation (understood as constraints) and his material cause for that which is constrained from above. We find ourselves, then, in a world where the ontological stratum of persons is constrained by both information theoretic laws from the bottom, and formal constraints from the top, leaving few, but important, degrees of freedom. This is likely the case for each ontological strata, which is why many worlds is required.
Now that was a lovely read. Question: Considering advancement towards AGI/ASI and associated hallucinations along with us as humans constructing their own realities, will/should trigger us to change ontological containers? There would be an interplay of "fluidity" i reckon. Meditation, psychedelics, or trauma can also potentially change containers, affecting personal identity and growth?
Hey David,
You bring up a great point about there needing be a "unify conversations around reality, consciousness, sentience, morality, and ethics."
I believe in many ways, AI will force us to ponder just this. Every age has its technological apex, and AI is so very postmodern that in no time it will have us questioning our identity, reality and meaning of our lives... not to mention all of the paradoxes it will produce around ethics and morality.
Anyways, even in a more ideal world, where people think deeply about their beliefs and explore them honestly there is still the big elephant in the room.
The elephant is, and pointed it out more or less, the elephant in the room is the your otological container define the limits of your perceptions. As a result, it become very difficult for people with conflicting worldview to talk.
For example, many scientists, physicists/materialist, reduce life down to the objective world of 'ITS'. This is a 1st person objective view that throws out the subjective. Obviously this is useful when doing scientific research, however limited when talking about the nature of reality, because the nature of reality is experienced in subjects. It feels like something to exists. To go a step further, it isn't just the subjective that is thrown out, but also the collective subjective and collective objective; culture, and living systems. And depending on where your frame of reference comes from (objective/subjective, individualistic/collective) you will see a very different resolution of reality.
As a result, if even a clear bride existed between the different worldview, by and large they discredit one another.
What is needed and will be needed more then ever are integrators, people who see from all of these perspectives, recognize where value exists which each of these worldviews and is able to build systems and organizations that integrate the value that each worldview provides.
Thank you David I really needed to read this. I have been pondering about our human existence and how AI will impact the paradigm of what is considered "normal". Based on what you have written I feel more sane because I realize there is no easy answer. And that even the brightest minds are still trying to tackle the age old question of meaning and existence.
David, another excellent installment. I'm so pleased that someone with your reach is underscoring the importance of what you call "Ontological containers". One thing we might add, as an extension, is that it might be possible to evaluate between ontological containers with a smaller subset of assumptions that don't imply full ontological containers in themselves. This is an epistemic question, but could hold coherence and logical consistency as its basic criteria. We might also evaluate containers based on pragmatic outcomes. Some assumptions need to be made, like that human thriving is a good, and the observables that mark thriving, but between these two criteria, coherence and outcomes related to thriving, certain containers do better than others (and some are largely equivalent). What do you think?
I think what you're talking about is situated morality e.g. conversations within a given paradigm conferred by a particular container. does that sound right?
The point I'm driving at is more as a bulwark against relativism. While you certainly don't even imply this, I could imagine someone using the notion of ontological containers to say that truth is wholly relative to the container under consideration and that containers are incommensurate with one another.
While it doesn't fully solve the problem, I'm suggesting that we could still apply a measurement device to compare containers, so long as we are willing to be fully transparent about the assumptions we are making, and so long as we keep that list of assumptions so small that it doesn't reach the threshold of being yet another container.
The reason it doesn't fully solve the problem is that someone could challenge those base assumptions, and there's not a lot, intellectually, we could do about that. However, if we have something like one of Kant's articulations of the categorical imperative, that you ought not do something that undermines your ability to do it (but with a pragmatic force that we feel, more than think), we might scrape by without devolving into relativism.
That's the point - truth is absolutely relative to an ontological container e.g. your ontological container grounds your epistemics. But you can convey a ton of epistemology by saying which ontological container you're using. Your relationship to knowledge, information, truth, and facts is determined by your ontological model of reality.
I don't think that's going to work as well as you think. Relativism is self-contradictory if you think that logic is independent of container. If not, all bets are off and even the concept of ontological container is not supported. Unless you're committing the classic epistemological/metaphysical conflation, relegating truth to something like consensus.