On Not Knowing

On Not Knowing

The framework has been presented with confidence, and this confidence is in some ways appropriate—the core claims have theoretical grounding, empirical support where empirical support is available, and explanatory power across domains that previously seemed unconnected. But the confidence should not be mistaken for certainty. The framework is a model, and all models are wrong, even if some are useful. The joints carved in affect space may not be the true joints. The identity thesis may be incorrect in ways that become apparent as consciousness science develops. The superorganisms analysis may be more metaphor than mechanism. The predictions about AI and the hinge may prove incorrect when the future actually arrives.

This is not weakness. This is how knowledge works. Every framework worth having has been revised, corrected, extended, partially falsified by subsequent investigation. The alternative to holding claims lightly is dogmatism, which is the death of inquiry, which is precisely what the framework warns against in the context of parasitic gods that suppress the questioning that might reveal their parasitism.

So: hold this lightly. Use it as a lens through which to see, not as a cage within which to remain. If your experience contradicts the framework, attend to your experience; the contradiction may reveal a limitation of the framework. If the framework helps you navigate, use it; if it doesn’t, find better tools. The goal is not to be a disciple of this particular map but to navigate the territory that the map attempts to describe. If a different map works better for you, use the different map.

But also: do not use uncertainty as an excuse for paralysis. The fact that the framework might be wrong does not mean you should wait for certainty before acting. The fact that the hinge might be less pivotal than it seems does not mean you should act as if it is not pivotal at all. Appropriate epistemic humility is not the same as refusing to commit; it is committing while holding the commitment revisably, acting on best current understanding while remaining open to evidence that the understanding should change.

The appropriate confidence level is something like: these claims are well-supported and worth taking seriously, and your life may go better if you take them seriously, but they are not gospel, they are not certain, and the universe does not owe you confirmation that the framework is correct. Navigate with the map you have, while remaining alert to signs that the map needs updating. This is what it means to act under genuine uncertainty, which is the only kind of action available to any of us.