Possibilianism

[felix_dakat]

Neuroscientist David Eagleman introduces possibilianism this way:

“Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I’m hoping to define a new position – one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story.”

In a New Yorker profile of Eagleman–entitled “The Possibilian”–Burkhard Bilger wrote:

Science had taught him to be skeptical of cosmic certainties, [Eagleman] told me. From the unfathomed complexity of brain tissue—“essentially an alien computational material”—to the mystery of dark matter, we know too little about our own minds and the universe around us to insist on strict atheism, he said. “And we know far too much to commit to a particular religious story.” Why not revel in the alternatives? Why not imagine ourselves, as he did in Sum, as bits of networked hardware in a cosmic program, or as particles of some celestial organism, or any of a thousand other possibilities, and then test those ideas against the available evidence? “Part of the scientific temperament is this tolerance for holding multiple hypotheses in mind at the same time,” he said. “As Voltaire said, uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.”

I just started reading and thinking about Eagleman’s ideas but so far I find them compatible with my own. What do you think?

Source: Wikipedia

[turtle]

felix that fits you…you stress the unknown…
but there are many objective truths…

this possible thing sounds like an imaginative agnosticism…

[felix_dakat]

@turtle

felix that fits you…you stress the unknown…
but there are many objective truths…

this possible thing sounds like an imaginative agnosticism…

Most of what we think we know, we know provisionally. Information is coming in all the time that will change. Objectivity can be deined a nuymberr of different way, so I’m not sure what you mean by “objective truth.” How do we get beyond our POV to know the object of any sense content? Imaginative agnosticism seems to fit. I think a possibilian wouldn’t want to rest in agnosticism. A possibilian would actively generate hypotheses whether they can be tested or not. That’s what Eagleman does.

[turtle]

@felix dakat

@turtle

felix that fits you…you stress the unknown…
but there are many objective truths…

this possible thing sounds like an imaginative agnosticism…

Most of what we think we know, we know provisionally. Information is coming in all the time that will change. Objectivity can be deined a nuymberr of different way, so I’m not sure what you mean by “objective truth.” How do we get beyond our POV to know the object of any sense content? Imaginative agnosticism seems to fit. I think a possibilian wouldn’t want to rest in agnosticism. A possibilian would actively generate hypotheses whether they can be tested or not. That’s what Eagleman does.

does objective truth have any meaning for you…

[felix_dakat]

To me an object is the supposition that the phenomenon we experience is grounded in a thing itself which we cannot know directly. To believe such an object exists is an act of faith.

[turtle]

@felix dakat

To me an object is the supposition that the phenomenon we experience is grounded in a thing itself which we cannot know directly. To believe such an object exists is an act of faith.

i am not sure what you are writing…being human we are never 100% sure of anything…

[felix_dakat]

@turtle

@felix dakat

To me an object is the supposition that the phenomenon we experience is grounded in a thing itself which we cannot know directly. To believe such an object exists is an act of faith.

i am not sure what you are writing…being human we are never 100% sure of anything…

What happened to the many objective truths you mentioned above? I mean I may know enough about a phenomeon to predict that if I collide A with B the result will likely be C, but I can never know all there is to know about a phenomenon. For example, I have a lot of information about turtle via ILP, but I will never know what it is like to be turtle on the inside.

[anon]

When I saw Possibilianism I thought I saw Possibillionism.

[iambiguous]

Is noting “anything is possible” the same thing as suggesting “nothing is impossible”? Is it possible we may never know for sure?

I think it is reasonable to speculate that all of us will go to the grave with the mystery still firmly intact.

[felix_dakat]

@iambiguous

Is noting “anything is possible” the same thing as suggesting “nothing is impossible”? Is it possible we may never know for sure?

I think it is reasonable to speculate that all of us will go to the grave with the mystery still firmly intact.

True, but the possibilian is disastisfied with his/her present state of knowledge and keeps generating hypotheses and seeking answers.

[felix_dakat]

@anon

When I saw Possibilianism I thought I saw Possibillionism.

Given the state of the federal budget it should at least be possitrillion.

[iambiguous]

@felix dakat

True, but the possibilian is disastisfied with his/her present state of knowledge and keeps generating hypotheses and seeking answers.

True, but, down through the ages, so have all the possibilians that came before him.

I’m all for the pursuit, of course; I just don’t have any illusions about reaching a destination. Well, other than oblivion.

Call it, say, the “Carl Sagan Syndrome”.

[felix_dakat]

@iambiguous

@felix dakat

True, but the possibilian is disastisfied with his/her present state of knowledge and keeps generating hypotheses and seeking answers.

True, but, down through the ages, so have all the possibilians that came before him.

I’m all for the pursuit, of course; I just don’t have any illusions about reaching a destination. Well, other than oblivion.

Call it, say, the “Carl Sagan Syndrome”.

That you will reach oblivian may be an illusion.

[Moreno]

@felix dakat

Science had taught him to be skeptical of cosmic certainties, [Eagleman] told me. From the unfathomed complexity of brain tissue—“essentially an alien computational material”—to the mystery of dark matter, we know too little about our own minds and the universe around us to insist on strict atheism, he said. “And we know far too much to commit to a particular religious story.” Why not revel in the alternatives? Why not imagine ourselves, as he did in Sum, as bits of networked hardware in a cosmic program, or as particles of some celestial organism, or any of a thousand other possibilities, and then test those ideas against the available evidence? “Part of the scientific temperament is this tolerance for holding multiple hypotheses in mind at the same time,” he said. “As Voltaire said, uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.”

[/quote]
I mean it is a pleasantly open attitude in the way of thinky minds. But it seems to think verbal thinking - with images tossed in - and then researching science after is the only way to knowledge. Most religions are processes, internal technologies, where the very experience(ing) of the individual is trained/transformed. IOW I think he is overestimating what shuffling words and images can actually teach one.

[Moreno]

@turtle

felix that fits you…you stress the unknown…
but there are many objective truths…

this possible thing sounds like an imaginative agnosticism…

Nice term for it!

[Moreno]

@turtle

@felix dakat

To me an object is the supposition that the phenomenon we experience is grounded in a thing itself which we cannot know directly. To believe such an object exists is an act of faith.

i am not sure what you are writing…being human we are never 100% sure of anything…

That admission right there should prohibit a person from then asserting that something is (without qualification) an objective truth. (in any rigorous context)

[turtle]

@Moreno

@turtle

@felix dakat

To me an object is the supposition that the phenomenon we experience is grounded in a thing itself which we cannot know directly. To believe such an object exists is an act of faith.

i am not sure what you are writing…being human we are never 100% sure of anything…

That admission right there should prohibit a person from then asserting that something is (without qualification) an objective truth. (in any rigorous context)

you always need a loophole…99.9% is pretty good…

[Moreno]

@turtle

you always need a loophole…99.9% is pretty good…

But loopholes and %ages have little to do, in my mind, with notions of objective truth. Ideas can work that are not correct. If you said - this is a useful idea, fine. But giving me odds, any odds, and then saying it is objective truth, that seems instantly like a contradiction. And how can one actually determine those odds?

How do you know what the odds are you are in a simulation? as one example amongst many.

How can we be objective about our own limitations?

[Jayson]

My first response is that I’m not seeing how this is any different than agnosticism, simply being without knowledge.
If the answer is only to determine a difference in motive between those that do not know and do not pursue, and those that do not know and do pursue, then what is wrong with agnostic philosopher?
The lover of wisdom that does not know.

By contrast to agnostic; the default statement of simply not knowing; stating nothing in regard to ones motivation.

The second thought that struck me was that, “possibilism”, is a terrible name and something that would be far more elegant would be something like, “ambignostic”, “amphignostic”, or the like.
Referring to holding knowledges from both theist, and atheist viewpoints.

[felix_dakat]

Possibilianism may be a form of agnosticism. If so, it’s a soft form that doesn’t claim it’s impossible to know. Rather it seeks to generate hypotheses and means of testing them whenever possible.