I’m not claiming that there is no truth, or that belief alters reality; I’m claiming that truth can only be determined within the context of assessment; that there is no absolute or objective truth.
I realize that this is at odds with some of Eliezer’s claims. But to provide an example related to Eliezer’s belief in mathematical realism. (Why isn’t this an obvious mind projection fallacy?)
Let’s say Fred performs a calculation that results in 2 + 3 = 6. This isn’t just a onetime mistake, he always calculates 2 + 3 as 6; if he sees the formula written down he will say, “Hey, that’s true.”
Why is this clearly false statement true to Fred? It’s because his mental implementation of the arithmetic abstraction is broken… from our perspective. Just because he believes that 2 + 3 = 6, it doesn’t mean that it’s true in any other context of assessment.
Just because we believe that 2 + 3 = 5, that doesn’t mean that the statement is an absolute truth. We can only evaluate the truth of the statement by assessing it within contexts that can give the statement meaning. My mailbox doesn’t do math at all, but my calculator does a fair job; although for my calculator I have to first transform the symbols into key presses.
Edited to add:
In the story you reference, the character Mark presumably dies when he jumps off a cliff believing that his beliefs would allow him to fly. Our minds are not a context of assessment for physical stuff, like our bodies or the ground; we can observe stuff by forming meaning from our senses, but we don’t provide the framework that gives that stuff its existence and that allows it to interact. We are subject to the context of assessment that generates our physical reality.
I’m not claiming that there is no truth, or that belief alters reality; I’m claiming that truth can only be determined within the context of assessment; that there is no absolute or objective truth.
I realize that this is at odds with some of Eliezer’s claims. But to provide an example related to Eliezer’s belief in mathematical realism. (Why isn’t this an obvious mind projection fallacy?)
Let’s say Fred performs a calculation that results in 2 + 3 = 6. This isn’t just a onetime mistake, he always calculates 2 + 3 as 6; if he sees the formula written down he will say, “Hey, that’s true.”
Why is this clearly false statement true to Fred? It’s because his mental implementation of the arithmetic abstraction is broken… from our perspective. Just because he believes that 2 + 3 = 6, it doesn’t mean that it’s true in any other context of assessment.
Just because we believe that 2 + 3 = 5, that doesn’t mean that the statement is an absolute truth. We can only evaluate the truth of the statement by assessing it within contexts that can give the statement meaning. My mailbox doesn’t do math at all, but my calculator does a fair job; although for my calculator I have to first transform the symbols into key presses.
Edited to add:
In the story you reference, the character Mark presumably dies when he jumps off a cliff believing that his beliefs would allow him to fly. Our minds are not a context of assessment for physical stuff, like our bodies or the ground; we can observe stuff by forming meaning from our senses, but we don’t provide the framework that gives that stuff its existence and that allows it to interact. We are subject to the context of assessment that generates our physical reality.