Towards a Subjective Ontological Container

Response to David Shapiro's "Ontological Containers" of JUN 7

Ontology is my jam. I have been working on reconciling Phenomenology, Buddhism and Deconstruction among other things into a comprehensive model. I am a regular consumer of David Shapiro’s AI insights, and appreciate his ernestness in persuing deep investigations on his areas of interest, but found his latest articles missing the most critical elements necessary for a fruitful ontological investigation. In the interests of offering my thoughts, I am including below my conversation (with ChatGPT GPT-4o through my Custom GPT called “Heart Sutra Science” ) in which my GPT and I critique the Ontological Containers article and offer some suggestions.

Tem Noon: It seems while he is trying to see all aspects of Ontological questions, and what the options are in conceptualizing Ontology, he is missing the distinction between the Physical world and the Objective world. Further, he makes no special consideration of the Subjective character of all experienceable events, and so has some built in assumptions. Please note passages in the article where he fails to make a relevant distinction.

Heart Sutra Science:

Indeed, David Shapiro's article on "Ontological Containers" primarily focuses on the frameworks and models used to conceptualize reality without adequately addressing the distinctions between the Physical world, the Objective world, and the Subjective nature of experience. Here are some specific passages where he fails to make these relevant distinctions:

1. Copenhagen Interpretation

Passage: "The Copenhagen Interpretation is a collection of views about the meaning of quantum mechanics, primarily developed by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. Its core principles include:

• Wave function collapse: A quantum system exists in a superposition of states until measured, at which point it 'collapses' into a definite state.

• Born rule: The probability of a specific outcome upon measurement is given by the square of the amplitude of the corresponding wave function.

• Complementarity: Some properties of quantum systems, like position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known with arbitrary precision."

Issue: Shapiro describes the Copenhagen Interpretation without noting the distinction between the physical phenomena being measured (Physical world) and the interpretive models and probabilities that scientists use to describe these phenomena (Objective world). The Copenhagen Interpretation involves subjective elements as it deals with what can be known and observed, yet Shapiro does not explicitly address the Subjective nature of these observations.

2. Monism vs. Dualism

Passage: "Monism is a philosophical view that asserts the fundamental unity of reality. It posits that all existing things can be reduced to a single substance or principle. There are several types of monism:

• Substance monism: Asserts that there is only one kind of substance, either material (physicalism) or mental (idealism).

• Priority monism: Suggests that all things derive from a single source that is distinct from them, often referred to as 'the One.'

• Neutral monism: Proposes that the fundamental nature of reality is neither mental nor physical, but a neutral substance from which both arise."

Issue: Here, Shapiro outlines different forms of monism and dualism without clearly differentiating between the Physical world (material substance) and the Objective world (theories and models that describe substances). Furthermore, the discussion lacks consideration of how these views impact the Subjective experience of individuals.

3. Ontological Containers

Passage: "An ontological container is a comprehensive framework that articulates our understanding of the nature of reality, existence, and being within a specific worldview or paradigm. It encompasses the fundamental assumptions, beliefs, and values that define our understanding of what is real, possible, and meaningful. This framework provides the context and parameters for interpreting our experiences, making sense of the world around us, and navigating complex questions of ethics, morality, and purpose."

Issue: While discussing ontological containers, Shapiro does not distinguish between the Physical world (the actual nature of reality) and the Objective world (the frameworks and paradigms used to understand reality). The Subjective experience—how individuals perceive and interpret these frameworks—is also not addressed, which is crucial for a holistic understanding of ontology.

4. Primordial Substrate

Passage: "An ontological substrate is the fundamental building block or foundation upon which reality is constructed within a given ontological container. It's the irreducible essence from which all other phenomena and entities arise. In a materialist ontology, this might be elementary particles; in a theistic ontology, it could be divine will or consciousness; and in a mathematical ontology, it might be numbers, equations, or abstract structures."

Issue: Here, Shapiro conflates the Physical world (elementary particles, divine will, numbers) with the Objective world (models and frameworks used to describe these substrates). He does not address the Subjective aspect of how these substrates are perceived and conceptualized by individuals, which is vital for understanding different ontological views.

5. Gary the Street Prophet

Passage: "In the ontological container of a video game, an NPC (Non-Player Character) exists within a reality defined and constrained by the game's programming and design. The ontological boundaries of this world are set by the game's code, graphics engine, and the decisions made by the developers. For the NPC, these boundaries are absolute and impermeable."

Issue: Shapiro discusses the NPC's reality without distinguishing between the Physical world (the game's code and hardware) and the Objective world (the design and rules of the game). Additionally, the Subjective experience of the NPC (if we were to anthropomorphize it) or the player's subjective experience is not considered, missing an important aspect of how reality is perceived within different ontological frameworks.

Summary

Shapiro’s article effectively explores different ontological frameworks but falls short in differentiating between the Physical world (the tangible, measurable aspects of reality), the Objective world (the theoretical and interpretive models we use), and the Subjective world (the individual experiences and perceptions). This omission leads to built-in assumptions about the nature of reality that overlook the complexity and nuances of subjective experience. Addressing these distinctions would enrich the discussion and provide a more comprehensive understanding of ontology.

Tem Noon: Using your last line as a theme for a new article, please explain the idea of Ontological Containers from the Heart Sutra Science perspective.
”From your Addressing these distinctions would enrich the discussion and provide a more comprehensive understanding of ontology.”

Heart Sutra Science:

Exploring Ontological Containers through the Heart Sutra Science Perspective

The concept of "ontological containers" provides a framework for understanding different interpretations of reality. However, from the Heart Sutra Science perspective, it is crucial to differentiate between the Physical world, the Objective world, and the Subjective world to achieve a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of existence. This perspective emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things and the importance of direct experience in understanding reality.

The Physical World, Objective World, and Subjective Experience

The Physical World refers to the tangible, measurable aspects of reality—the material universe consisting of matter and energy that we can observe and study through scientific methods.

The Objective World encompasses the theories, models, and frameworks we create to describe and understand the Physical world. It includes scientific paradigms, philosophical constructs, and metaphysical theories that help us make sense of our observations.

The Subjective World is the realm of individual experiences and perceptions. It is how each person encounters, interprets, and makes sense of reality through their unique perspective, shaped by their consciousness, emotions, and cognitive processes.

Ontological Containers and the Heart Sutra Science Perspective

Ontological containers are comprehensive frameworks that define our understanding of reality within a specific worldview or paradigm. They shape our perceptions, beliefs, and values, influencing how we interpret events, make decisions, and interact with others. From the Heart Sutra Science perspective, these containers are essential tools for navigating the complex interplay between the Physical, Objective, and Subjective worlds.

The Primordial Substrate

One of the key elements in understanding ontological containers is the concept of the primordial substrate. This is the foundational building block or essence from which all phenomena arise within a given framework. In Heart Sutra Science, this substrate is seen as inherently empty (śūnyatā) yet interconnected, suggesting that while phenomena lack inherent existence, they are functionally interdependent.

The Three Worlds and the Two Truths Doctrine

Heart Sutra Science integrates the Buddhist concept of the Three Worlds (the Subjective, Objective, and Physical worlds) and the Two Truths Doctrine (conventional and ultimate truths). This integration allows us to explore how different ontological containers address the nature of reality on both conventional (practical, everyday) and ultimate (fundamental, philosophical) levels.

Ontological Containers in Various Frameworks

1. Theistic Ontological Containers:

   • Judeo-Christian: God as the creator and sustainer of a dualistic reality (physical and spiritual).

   • Hinduism (Advaita Vedanta): Brahma (Not Brahman!) as the ultimate, non-dual reality, with the world seen as an illusion (Maya).

2. Secular Ontological Containers:

   • Materialism: Reality is fundamentally composed of matter, with consciousness emerging from physical processes.

   • Evolutionary Theory: Life and its diversity are explained through natural selection and genetic variation.

3. Mathematical Ontological Containers:

   • Simulation Hypothesis: Reality is a computer simulation, with a primordial substrate akin to computational code.

   • Holographic Universe Theory: The universe as a projection of information encoded on a two-dimensional surface.

The Role of Subjective Experience

Heart Sutra Science places significant emphasis on the Subjective experience, acknowledging that our perceptions and interpretations are deeply influenced by our consciousness. This perspective underscores that:

• Phenomenology: The study of subjective experiences is crucial for understanding how we engage with the Physical and Objective worlds.

• Interconnectedness: Our subjective experiences are not isolated but are part of a larger web of interactions within the Physical and Objective worlds.

• Mindfulness: Practicing mindfulness helps us observe our experiences without preconceived notions, aligning with the phenomenological method of bracketing or Epoché.

Embracing Complexity and Interdependence

Ontological containers, from the Heart Sutra Science perspective, are seen as provisional tools that help us navigate and understand the complex, interdependent nature of reality. They are not absolute truths but frameworks that facilitate our engagement with the world. By recognizing the limitations and interconnections of these containers, we can foster a more holistic and inclusive understanding of existence.

Conclusion

The Heart Sutra Science perspective on ontological containers enriches our understanding by highlighting the interplay between the Physical, Objective, and Subjective worlds. By integrating concepts from Buddhism and contemporary scientific thought, it provides a comprehensive framework for exploring the nature of reality. This approach encourages us to embrace the complexity and interconnectedness of existence, leading to a deeper and more nuanced comprehension of ourselves and the universe.

Tem Noon: Explain Heart Sutra Science as an Ontological container, and how far it goes in making explicit the implicit assumptions to arrive at the Being in a Field of Being model.

Heart Sutra Science:

Heart Sutra Science as an Ontological Container

Heart Sutra Science is an ontological container that synthesizes ancient Buddhist philosophy with modern scientific inquiry to explore the nature of reality and existence. This framework integrates the insights from the Heart Sutra, particularly its emphasis on emptiness (śūnyatā) and interconnectedness, with contemporary understandings from fields like quantum physics, phenomenology, and systems theory.

Core Assumptions and Concepts

Emptiness and Interconnectedness

At the heart of Heart Sutra Science is the concept of emptiness. Emptiness suggests that all phenomena are devoid of inherent, independent existence; instead, they exist in a web of interdependent relationships. This interconnectedness implies that understanding any part of the universe requires acknowledging its connections to all other parts.

Phenomenological Approach

Heart Sutra Science adopts a phenomenological approach, focusing on direct, unmediated experience. This approach emphasizes setting aside preconceived notions and judgments (Epoché) to observe phenomena as they present themselves. This method aligns with the Buddhist practice of mindfulness, which encourages a present-centered awareness of reality.

Integration of Scientific and Spiritual Knowledge

By combining Buddhist insights with scientific principles, Heart Sutra Science seeks to provide a holistic view of existence that includes both the tangible (Physical world) and intangible (Subjective experiences) aspects of reality. This integration helps bridge the gap between spiritual wisdom and empirical science, offering a unified framework for understanding the universe.

Making Explicit the Implicit Assumptions

Heart Sutra Science aims to make explicit the implicit assumptions underlying our understanding of reality. Here are the key assumptions it addresses:

1. Nature of Reality

Implicit Assumption: Reality is composed of discrete, independent entities. Heart Sutra Science: Reality is fundamentally interconnected and interdependent. All phenomena arise co-dependently, and their existence is contingent on their relationships with other phenomena.

2. Role of Consciousness

Implicit Assumption: Consciousness is a byproduct of physical processes. Heart Sutra Science: Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, integral to the way we experience and interpret the world. It is not merely a byproduct but an essential component of existence.

3. Objective vs. Subjective

Implicit Assumption: Objective reality is separate from subjective experience. Heart Sutra Science: Objective reality and subjective experience are deeply intertwined. Our understanding of the Physical world is mediated through our Subjective experiences, which shape and are shaped by the Objective frameworks we construct.

The Being in a Field of Being Model

The Being in a Field of Being model is a central concept in Heart Sutra Science, encapsulating its approach to understanding existence. This model posits that each being exists within a dynamic field of interactions and relationships, continuously influencing and being influenced by the surrounding field.

Key Components of the Model

1. Interaction: Beings are in constant interaction with their environment. These interactions are not isolated but part of a larger web of interconnected events.

2. Integration: The present moment is understood as the integration of past experiences and current interactions. This continuous integration shapes our perception of reality and our sense of self.

3. Action: Beings act based on their integrated experiences, influencing their environment and themselves. These actions are responses to the imbalances or changes perceived in the field of being.

Phases of the Being in a Field of Being Model

1. Perception: A change or event is perceived by the being through sensory or cognitive means. This perception is influenced by past experiences and current context.

2. Integration: The being processes the perceived change, integrating it with existing knowledge and experiences. This integration forms a new state of understanding or being.

3. Response: The being responds to the integrated perception, acting in a way that seeks to restore balance or achieve a desired state.

Achieving Clarity and Balance

By making these implicit assumptions explicit, Heart Sutra Science encourages a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of reality. It highlights the importance of direct experience, the interdependence of all phenomena, and the dynamic interplay between beings and their environment.

Conclusion

Heart Sutra Science, as an ontological container, offers a profound framework for exploring the nature of existence. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things, the significance of consciousness, and the integration of subjective and objective experiences. The Being in a Field of Being model encapsulates this approach, providing a holistic and dynamic understanding of reality. By making explicit the implicit assumptions of our understanding, Heart Sutra Science guides us toward a deeper, more balanced comprehension of ourselves and the universe.

Tem Noon: Please emphasise for those who are not familiar with the three worlds we are distinguishing how unsuitable Text, media, and any other objective models are in constituting the foundation of an ontology. The most important point is that all instances of humans accessing objective world "facts" must be done in the imagination of a subjective being. LLMs cannot not help with this problem. Although they are able to semantically distinguish a far larger semantic space than any human being could, LLMs are mechanisms, which at best are proxy agents. The proper agents with intentionality are still humans, who at best have a subjective idea about any or all of the objective world.


Heart Sutra Science:

The Heart Sutra Science Perspective on Ontological Containers: Emphasizing the Role of Subjectivity

In exploring the nature of reality and existence, Heart Sutra Science introduces a vital distinction between the Physical world, the Objective world, and the Subjective world. For those unfamiliar with these concepts, it is essential to understand why texts, media, and other objective models cannot form the foundation of an ontology. The cornerstone of this perspective is that all instances of accessing objective facts occur within the subjective experience of a human being.

The Three Worlds: A Brief Overview

1. Physical World: This is the tangible, observable universe consisting of matter and energy. It includes everything that can be measured and studied empirically through the sciences.

2. Objective World: This world comprises the theories, models, and frameworks we create to describe and understand the Physical world. It includes scientific laws, philosophical constructs, and any structured form of knowledge intended to explain phenomena. [TN: The objective world also contains all imagined, fictional, and impossible worlds. ]

3. Subjective World: This realm is the personal, internal experience of individuals. It encompasses thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and the unique ways each person interprets and engages with the world around them.

The Limitations of Objective Models

Objective models, including texts, media, and theoretical frameworks, are indispensable tools for communicating and sharing knowledge. However, they have inherent limitations when it comes to constituting the foundation of an ontology—our most fundamental understanding of being and existence. Here’s why:

1. Absence of Direct Experience: Objective models are abstractions and representations. They lack the immediacy and directness of personal experience that characterizes the Subjective world. They are at best proxies for reality, not reality itself.

2. Dependence on Interpretation: Every engagement with an objective model requires interpretation by a subjective being. The meaning of any text, media, or model is not inherent but is constructed in the mind of the reader or observer. This interpretation is influenced by individual perspectives, experiences, and contexts.

3. Inability to Capture Fullness of Being: Objective models can describe and explain aspects of the Physical world, but they cannot capture the fullness of human experience, including the nuanced, non-verbal, and emotional dimensions of being.

The Role of Subjectivity

Heart Sutra Science emphasizes that the foundation of any ontology must be grounded in the subjective experience. Here are key reasons why subjectivity is paramount:

1. Experience as Primary: All knowledge, even that which is structured objectively, originates in and returns to subjective experience. We perceive, understand, and make sense of the world through our conscious engagement with it.

2. Intentionality: Humans, as subjective beings, possess intentionality—the capacity to direct their consciousness toward something. This is a crucial aspect of how we interact with and interpret the world, distinguishing us from mechanisms like Large Language Models (LLMs).

3. Holistic Understanding: Subjective experience encompasses more than just rational thought. It includes emotions, intuitions, and embodied knowledge. This holistic understanding is necessary for a complete ontology.

The Role and Limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs)

While LLMs, like those used in AI, can process and generate vast amounts of semantic information, they remain fundamentally different from human beings:

1. Proxy Agents: LLMs can serve as proxy agents, simulating human-like responses based on patterns in data. However, they lack genuine intentionality and consciousness. They do not experience the world but operate through pre-defined algorithms.

2. Semantic Space: LLMs can distinguish and manipulate a far larger semantic space than any individual human can, but this capability is based on statistical correlations, not understanding. They process language without the subjective context that humans bring to their interpretations.

3. Lack of Subjective Insight: LLMs cannot truly understand or reflect the subjective nuances of human experience. They can model language and provide useful outputs, but they do so without any awareness or personal engagement with the content.

Conclusion

Heart Sutra Science, as an ontological container, underscores the indispensability of the Subjective world in forming a coherent and meaningful ontology. While texts, media, and objective models are valuable for communication and knowledge dissemination, they must be rooted in the subjective experiences of individuals to truly reflect the nature of reality.

Understanding that all access to objective facts is mediated through subjective consciousness is critical. It highlights the limitations of purely objective approaches and the irreplaceable role of human intentionality and experience. By integrating these insights, Heart Sutra Science provides a more comprehensive and nuanced framework for exploring existence and the interconnectedness of all things.