I have largely lost hope, though, that any of the Enlightened will seriously attempt to explain how, rather than just continuing to tell us Unenlightened folks that our ontology, or paperclip-maximizer-like brain subagents, or whatever, block us from understanding.
I really am sincerely trying. In this case there’s a pretty epic inferential gap, and I’m working on bridging that gap… and it requires first talking about paperclip-maximizing-like mechanisms and illusions created by self-reference within ontologies that one is subject to. Then I can point at the Gödelian loophole, and we can watch our minds do summersaults, and we’ll recognize the summersaults and can step back and talk coherently about what the existence of the ontological wormhole might mean for epistemology.
Or at least that’s the plan.
And… I recognize it’s frustrating in the middle. And if I were more clever and/or more knowledgeable, I might have seen a way to make it less frustrating. I’d rather not create that experience for y’all.
FWIW, I don’t think the Unenlightened can’t understand where I’m going. I just need some conceptual structures, like the social web thing, to make where I’m going even possible to say — at least given my current skill with expressing this stuff.
Still, I continue to harbour some hope that Valentine’s future articles may be, um, enlightening.
I hope so too.