# Ontological Cluelessness

__Humans may be in a state of total confusion as to the fundamental
makeup of the cosmos and its rules, to the point where even extremely
basic concepts would need to be revised for accurate understanding.__

*epistemic status*: Philosophy

*Content Warning*: Philosophy

*Attention conservation notice*: Philosophy

> There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt
of in your philosophy

*—[William Shakespeare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare), [“Hamlet”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet) I.5:159–167, 1600*

I want to describe a philosophical stance and/or position that could
be called __"ontological cluelessness"__.

### Definition

__Ontological cluelessness__ is a state of knowledge that humans could
be in, in which they haven't yet discovered the correct basic categories
and frameworks for making sense of the cosmos[^terminology] in which
they find themselves.

[^terminology]: I will use the term "cosmos" a lot here because the entirety of existence may turn out to be much larger (think [Tegmark IV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis)) or much smaller (think solipsism) than what standard science considers to be the "universe".

That is, humans currently use some basic frameworks for making sense
of the cosmos, which include several branches and flavours of science,
mathematics, many religions, and many philosophical frameworks; they
also use many basic categories like the notion of a physical law,
consciousness, matter, God, substance, Being, moral facts, logical
entailment, stories & myths, and so on.

These frameworks and categories may be utterly inadequate for making
sense of the cosmos humans find themselves in, and instead represent
a local maximum in the space of conceptual apparatūs that could be
used to make sense of the cosmos. If that is indeed the case, humanity
finds itself in a state of ontological cluelessness. I don't want make
strong claims as to [whether humanity *is* in a state of ontological
cluelessness](#Likelihood), but I believe that it is a hypothesis worth
tracking.

Ontological cluelessness can be intepreted in multiple versions with
differing strength, where weaker versions may retain some fundamental
categories (such as the notion of a concept, or the notion of knowledge);
the strongest version calls into question all current ways of knowing (as
in inventing notions as basic as the concept of a concept). Leaving this
latter kind of strong ontological cluelessness would entail an extreme
upending of what we thought the cosmos was made of, the basic principles
by which it operated, and the ways to make sense of those principles.

### Relation to Other Ideas in Philosophy

Ontological cluelessness is distinct from [*radical
skepticism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism),
[*pyrrhonism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism) and
[*mysticism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism):

1. It differs from *radical skepticism* in that it does not make any strong statement about whether knowledge is possible or not, and indeed a state of ontological cluelessness may hold open the possibility of far deeper or richer knowledge of the cosmos.
2. It is close to *pyrrhonism*, but differs from it in not making a positive claim that judgment should be suspended.
3. Ontological cluelessness differs from *mysticism* because it doesn't preclude the possibility of knowing, and doesn't promise the attainment of insight or mystical knowledge. It also doesn't claim spiritual meaning and knowledge is privileged over other kinds of knowledge.

Ontological cluelessness can be seen as a tacit pre-supposition
for much foundational (mostly continental) metaphysical work
(e.g. Heidegger, Deleuze, Whitehead, maybe Hegel?). That is,
looking at Heidegger with his investigation of [fundamental
ontology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_ontology)
and Dasein (and especially his later Kehre and
[aletheia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aletheia)) and Deleuze with
his nomadic science, I feel like that's the kind of metaphysics one'd
see that resolves ontological cluelessness. Analytic metaphysics, as
far as I can tell, mostly tacitly rejects ontological cluelessness.

### Ontological Cluing

I will call the process of resolving/exiting ontological cluelessness
__"ontological cluing"__. Ontological cluing could take three different
forms:

1. "*Additive ontological cluing*", in which new categories and frameworks are added to existing ones to allow for a more adequate understanding of the cosmos (thus our current concepts represent a [subspace optimum](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yuP4D4Pz79uyPS9KW)).
2. "*Replacing ontological cluing*", in which existing categories and frameworks are wholly dropped.
3. A secret third option, opened up by the process of ontological cluing.

Ontological cluing can also be thought of along two other axes:

1. *Recognizable* vs. *unrecognizable* ontological cluing: Whether, when someone has undergone ontological cluing, a third person can recognize that fact.
2. *Communicable* vs *uncommunicable* ontological cluing: Whether the ontological cluing can be communicated, and to what degree.

The secret third option is possible for both the recognizability and the communicability axis.

Superintelligences may help with ontological cluing *if* they are philosophically or
[metaphilosophically](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fJqP9WcnHXBRBeiBg/meta-questions-about-metaphilosophy) competent.

#### Examples of Ontological Cluing?

This post has been pretty abstract so far, partly due to the abstract
nature of the topic at hand. I don't want to speculate or pretend that
I can resolve ontological cluelessness if humanity is in that state, but
I can give examples of intellectual advances that'd count as ontological
cluing *if* humanity's ontological cluelessness lies in the past. Examples
would include:

* The concept "concept".
* Both the intuitive mental motion of abstracting something, *and* the concept "abstraction".
* Developing both an intuitive understanding of causality, and developing a concept of "causality", *and* developing a [formal theory of causality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_model).
* The invention of language, mathematics.
* The moves from animism to paganism to monotheistic religions.

### Likelihood

I personally think it's pretty likely that humanity is ontologically
clueless, and if forced I'd put a 30% chance on it (though this number
is obviously fraught, since resolving ontological cluelessness may upend
the notion of probabilistic notion or probabilities, and after all may
never be resolved by experiment).

Humans don't seem to have been selected very strongly for understanding
the cosmos accurately, and also not selected very strongly to be competent
at philosophy or metaphilosophy.

### Practical Implications

I don't think that believing in the option of being ontologically clueless
has immediate practical implications. It may lead one to take an open
stance towards new conceptual schemes and frameworks, and a receptivity
to what could be encountered. It may turn out that our actions matter
much more than we think, or much less; it may turn out that the cosmos
is much larger than we think, or much smaller; it may be the case that
the universe is much better and forgiving than we believe, or much more
adversarial and unforgiving; and all of those notions could stop making
sense if we understand what, so to speak, "is going on".

Whether or not we are in a state of ontological cluelessness is
a crucial consideration, but a frustratingly
vague one.

See Also
---------

Nick Bostrom has been hinting at something adjacent to this in some recent
interviews (which, maddeningly, I can't find), and I wildly extrapolated
his subtle hints; all the mistakes and muddled thinking lie with me.

* Alternative explanation, in form of [poetry](https://niplav.site/microfiction.html#The_Open_Sky).