I enjoyed reading your article- In my opinion it hints at many good ideas, and is easy and pleasant to read.
At the same time I believe that you should review your own assumptions quite extensively, and also rethink the structure of your argument. You seem to refer to some of the rules for scientific verification, and then hop across to an appeal for flexibility in individuals value choices. These are commonly accepted sets of ideas, but they have little to do with each other.

And really, every assumption does not amount to an act of religious acceptance. No system can prove itself, so yes, every base assumption is, well, assumed. In a working logic any axiom is discardable at need. The criterion for the validity of the system is usually its operational validity, and the basic assumptions stand or fall by that, not in themselves. In religious belief such an attitude would not be tolerable. I dont know of any religion that makes the statement, ” Believe in God until we find contrary evidence.”

I understand that you are being as concise as possible and that you could not lay out your entire argument while keeping peoples interest. So I am not pointing at the incompleteness of the various points you make. More basically, I think that when dealing with issues as complex as intelligence, ethics, system theory, theory of knowledge, theory of mind, or even just rational decision making that you should take more care to limit your intent and clarify the assumptions in your own argument.

Please reconsider what intelligence may be beyond your search engine desription. Isn’t it a conditional thing? Individual intelligence is variable and situational, subject to the tastes of whoever cares to measure it, and definitely poorly understood by all.

Also note that arguments and beliefs are not just based on their assumptions, any more than a system is only reliant on its elements. Logic and process are just two other important consitituents. There are many more.

Bottom line, I sympathise with the intent of what you wrote, but I believe that any real attempt to take an informed intellectual stance on what is knowable or reasonable to assume is already the work of a lifetime. Confusing the issue with what is right and good to know is a whole different kettle of fish, and a job at least equal to the other.

Regards
John

To add a thought to the part at the end of your piece about wisdom being achieved by deciding what assumptions we are willing to make. The knowledge we then lack access to can be supplimented by decisions on who to trust as advisors on that knowledge, thus showing a humility that one simply can’t “know it all”. I think this is another sign of wisdom.

I’m of the idea that extremes and overindulgance in pretty much anything can be unhealthy. You provide a good case for finding a good balance in one’s own quest for knowledge.