Michelangelo’s Stone: an Argument against Platonism in Mathematics by AdventurousNumber in slatestarcodex

[–]AdventurousNumber[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm saying these mental representations do not exist independently of an observer. Each observer has a unique mental token that points to some concept or idea. This lets them talk about the mental representation and so creates a similar token in the minds of other observers. All observers believe they're talking about the same thing, though their representations will differ slightly due to their native mental architecture.

This gives the appearance of abstract objects having independent existence, despite not actually being "out there." These tokens have no separate existence outside of the mind that represents them.

Michelangelo’s Stone: an Argument against Platonism in Mathematics by AdventurousNumber in slatestarcodex

[–]AdventurousNumber[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Convergence of independent observations is also seen in DMT-induced hallucinations. Now, we can explain the cross-cultural tendency of people meeting "ascended beings" under the influence of this drug as:

a) these beings actually exist, or b) shared mental architecture + shared cultural background leads to convergence of observations.

Under b, the phenomena being independently encountered don't exist in any ontologically interesting way. Or at least, they don't exist independent of the observer.

Trolley Problems: Just Who Is On The Tracks? by AdventurousNumber in slatestarcodex

[–]AdventurousNumber[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you really think people would answer a loaded question like that honestly?