= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
p4wnc6 comments on A Defense of Naive Metaethics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (294)
The verb believe goes without saying when making claims about the world. To assert that 'the sign is red' is true would not make sense if I did not believe it, by definition. I would either be lying or unaware of my own mental state. To me, your question borders more on opinions and their consequences.
Quoting from there: "But your beliefs are not about you; beliefs are about the world. Your beliefs should be your best available estimate of the way things are; anything else is a lie."
What I'm trying to say is that the statement (Murder is wrong) implies the further slight linguistic variant (I believe murder is wrong) (modulo the possibility that someone is lying or mentally ill, etc.) The question then is whether (I believe murder is wrong) -> (murder is wrong). Ultimately, from the perspective of the person making these claims, the answer is 'yes'. It makes no sense for me to feel that my preferences are not universally and unequivocally true.
I don't find this at odds with a situation where a notorious murderer who is caught, say Hannibal Lecter, can simultaneously choose his actions and say "murder is wrong". Maybe the person is mentally insane. But even if they aren't, they could simply choose a preference ordering such that the local wrongness of failing to gratify their desire to murder is worse than the local wrongness of murder itself in their society. Thus, they can see that to people who don't have the same preference for murdering someone for self-gratification, the computation of beliefs works out that (murder is wrong) is generally true, but not true when you substitute their local situations into their personal formula for computing the belief. In this case it just becomes an argument over words because the murderer is tacitly substituting his personal local definitions for things when making choices, but then using more general definitions when making statements of beliefs. In essence, the murderer believes it is not wrong for him to murder and get the gratification, but that murder, as society defines it and views it, is "wrong" where "wrong" is a society-level description, not the murderer's personal description. I put a little more about the "words" problem below.
The apparent difference between this way of thinking and the way we all experience our thinking is that, among our assertions is the meta-assertion that (over-asserting beliefs is bad) -> (I believe over-asserting beliefs is bad) or something similar to this. All specific beliefs, including such meta-beliefs, are intertwined. You can't have independent beliefs about whether murder is right that don't depend on your beliefs about whether beliefs should be acted upon like they are cold hard facts.
But at the root, all beliefs are statements about physics. Mapping a complicated human belief down to the level of making statistical pattern recognition claims about amplitude distributions is really hard and inaccessible to us. Further, evolutionarily, we can't afford to burn computation time exploring a fully determined picture of our beliefs. After some amount of computation time, we have to make our chess moves or else the clock runs out and we lose.
It only feels like saying (I believe murder is wrong) fails to imply the claim (murder is wrong). Prefacing a claim with "I believe" is a human-level way or trying to mitigate the harshness of the claim. It could be a statement that tries to roughly quantify how much evidence I can attest to for the claim which the belief describes. It certainly sounds more assured to say (murder is wrong) than to say (I believe murder is wrong), but this is a phantom distinction.
The other thing, which I think you are trying to take special pains to avoid, is that you can very easily run into a battle of words here. If someone says, "I believe murder is wrong" and what they really mean is something like "I believe that it does an intolerable amount of social disservice in the modern society that I live in for anyone to act as if murdering is acceptable, and thus to always make sure to punish murderers," basically, if someone translates "murder" into "the local definition of murder in the world that I frequently experience" and they translate "wrong" into "the local definition of wrong (e.g. punishable in court proceedings or something)", then they are no longer talking about the cognitive concept of murder. An alien race might not define murder the same or "wrong" the same.
If someone uses 'believe' to distinguish between making a claim about the most generalized form of murder they can think of, applicable to the widest array of potential sentient beings, or something like that, then the two statements are different, but only artificially.
If I say "I believe murder is wrong" and I really mean "I believe (my local definition of murder) is (my local definition of wrong)" then this implies the statement (The concept described by my local definition of murder is locally wrong), with no "quantifier" of belief required.
In the end, all statements can be reduced this way. If a statement has "I believe" as a "quantifier", then either it is only an artificial facet of language that restricts the definitions of words in the claim to some (usually local) subset on which the full, unprefaced claim can be made... or else if local definitions of words aren't being implicated, then the "I believe" prefix literally contains no additional information about the state of your mind than the raw assertion would yield.
This is why rhetoric professors go nuts when students write argumentative papers and drop "I think that" or "I believe that" all over the place. Assertions are assertions. It's a social custom that you can allude to the fact that you might not have 100% confidence in your assertion by prefacing it with "I believe". It's also a social custom that you can allude to respect for other beliefs or participation in a negotiation process by prefacing claims with "I believe", but in the strictest sense of what information you're conveying to third parties (separate from any social custom dressings), the "I believe" preface adds no information content.
The difference is here
Alice: "I bet you $500 that the sign is red" Bob: "OK" later, they find out it's blue Bob: "Pay up!"
Alice: "I bet you $500 that I believe the sign is red" Bob: "OK" later, they find out it's blue Alice: "But I thought it was red! Pay up!"
That's the difference between "X" and "I believe X". We say them in the same situation, but they mean different things.
The way statements like "murder is wrong" communicate facts about preference orders is pretty ambiguous. But suppose someone says that "Murder is wrong, and this is more important than gratifying my desire, possible positive consequences of murder, and so on" and then murders, without changing their mind. Would they therefore be insane? If yes, you agree with me.
Correct is at issue, not true.
Why? Why do you say this?
Does "i believe the sky is green" imply "the sky is green"? Sure, you believe that, when you believe X, X is probably true, but that's a belief, not a logical implication.
I am suggesting a similar thing for morality. People believe that "(I believe murder is wrong) => (murder is wrong)" and that belief is not reducible to physics.
Assertions aren't about the state of your mind! At least some of them are about the world - that thing, over there.
I don't understand this. If Alice bet Bob that she believed that the sign was red, then going and looking at the sign would in no way settle the bet. They would have to go look at her brain to settle that bet, because the claim, "I believe the sign is red" is a statement about the physics of Alice's brain.
I want to think more about this and come up with a more coherent reply to the other points. I'm very intrigued. Also, I think that I accidentally hit the 'report' button when trying to reply. Please disregard any communication you might get about that. I'll take care of it if anyone happens to follow up.
You are correct in your first paragraph, I oversimplified.
I think this address this topic very well. The first person experience of belief is one in the same with fact-assertion. 'I ought to do X' refers to a 4-tuple of actions, outcomes, utility function, and conditional probability function.
W.r.t. your question about whether a murderer who, prior to and immediately after committing murder, attests to believing that murder is wrong, I would say it is a mistaken question to bring their sanity into it. You can't decide that question without debating what is meant by 'sane'. How a person's preference ordering and resulting actions look from the outside does not necessarily reveal that the person failed to behave rationally, according to their utility function, on the inside. If I choose to label them as 'insane' for seeming to violate their own belief, this is just a verbal distinction about how I will label such third-person viewings of that occurrence. Really though, their preference ordering might have been temporarily suspended due to clouded judgment from rage or emotion. Or, they might not be telling the full truth about their preference ordering and may not even be aware of some aspects of it.
The point is that beliefs are always statements of physics. If I say, "murder is wrong", I am referring to some quantified subset of states of matter and their consequences. If I say, "I believe murder is wrong", I am telling you that I assert that "murder is wrong" is true, which is a statement about my brain's chemistry.
Everyone keeps saying that, but they never give convincing arguments for it.
I also disagree with this.
Pardon me, but I believe the burden of proof here is for you to supply something non-physical that's being specified and then produce evidence that this is the case. If the thing you're talking about is supposed to be outside of a magisterium of evidence, then I fail to see how your claim is any different than that we are zombies.
At a coarse scale, we're both asking about the evidence that we observe, which is the first-person experience of assertions about beliefs. Over models that can explain this phenomenon, I am attempting to select the one with minimum message length, as a computer program for producing the experience of beliefs out of physical material can have some non-zero probability attached to it through evidence. How are we to assign probability to the explanation that beliefs do not point to things that physically exist? Is that claim falsifiable? Are there experiments we can do which depend on the result? If not, then the burden of proof here is squarely on you to present a convincing case why the same-old same-old punting to complicated physics is not good enough. If it's not good enough for you, and you insist on going further, that's fine. But physics is good enough for me here and that's not a cop out or an unjustified conclusion in the slightest.
Suppose I say "X is red".
That indicates something physical - it indicates that I believe X is red
but it means something different, and also physical - it means that X is red
Now suppose I say "X is wrong"
That indicates something physical - it indicates that I believe X is wrong
using the same-old, same-old principle, we include that it means something different.
but there is nothing else physical that we could plausibly say it means.
Why do you say this? Flesh out the definition of 'wrong' and you're done. 'Wrong' refers to arrangements of matter and their consequences. It doesn't attempt to refer to intrinsic properties of objects that exist apart from their physicality. If (cognitive object X) is (attribute Y) this just means that (arrangements of matter that correspond to what I give the label X) have (physical properties that I group together into the heading Y). It doesn't matter if you're saying "freedom is good" or "murder is wrong" or "that sign is red". 'Freedom' refers to arrangements of matter and physical laws governing them. 'Good' refers to local physical descriptions of the ways that things can yield fortunate outcomes, where fortunate outcomes can be further chased down in its physical meaning, etc.
"X is wrong" unpacks to statements about the time evolution of physical systems. You can't simply say
Have you gone and checked every possible physical thing? Have you done experiments showing that making correspondences between cognitive objects and physical arrangements of matter somehow "fails" to capture its "meaning"?
This seems to me to be one of those times where you need to ask yourself: is it really the case that cognitive objects are not just linguistic devices for labeling arrangements of matter and laws governing the matter......... or do I just think that's the case?
Your whole argument rests on this, since you have not provided a counterexample to my claim. You've just repeated the fact that there is some physical referent, over and over.
This is not how burden of proof works! It would be simply impossible for me to check every possible physical thing. Is it, therefore, impossible for you to be convinced that I am right?
I expect better from lesswrong posters.
Hm? It's easy to form beliefs about things that aren't physical. Suppose I tell you that the infinite cardinal aleph-1 is strictly larger than aleph-0. What's the physical referent of the claim?
I'm not making a claim about the messy physical neural structures in my head that correspond to those sets -- I'm making a claim about the nonphysical infinite sets.
Likewise, I can make all sorts of claims about fictional characters. Those aren't claims about the physical book, they're claims about its nonphysical implications.
Why do you think that nonphysical implications are ontologically existing things? I argue that what you're trying to get at by saying "nonphysical implications" are actual quantified subsets of matter. Ideas, however abstract, are referring to arrangements of matter. The vision in your mind when you talk about aleph-1 is of a physically existing thing. When's the last time you imagined something that wasn't physical? A unicorn? You mean a horse with wings glued onto it? Mathematical objects represent states of knowledge, which are as physical as anything else. The color red refers to a particular frequency of light and the physical processes by which it is a common human experience. There is no idea of what red is apart from this. Red is something different to a blind man than it is to you, but by speaking about your physical referent, the blind man can construct his own useful physical referent.
Claims about fictional characters are no better. What do you mean by Bugs Bunny other than some arrangement of colors brought to your eyes by watching TV in the past. That's what Bugs Bunny is. There's no separately existing entity which is Bugs Bunny that can be spoken about as if it ontologically was. Every person who refers to Bugs Bunny refers to physical subsets of matter from their experience, whether that's because they witnessed the cartoon and were told through supervised learning what cognitive object to attach it to or they heard about it later through second hand experience. A blind person can have a physical referent when speaking about Bugs Bunny, albeit one that I have a very hard time mentally simulating.
In any case, merely asserting that something fails to have a physical referent is not a convincing reason to believe so. Ask yourself why you think there is no physical referent and whether one could construct a computational system that behaves that way.
No.
I have no very firm ontological beliefs. I don't want to make any claim about whether fictional characters or mathematical abstractions "really exist".
I do claim that I can talk about abstractions without there being any set of physical referents for that abstraction. I think it's utterly routine to write software that manipulates things without physical referents. A type-checker, for instance, isn't making claims about the contents of memory; it's making higher-order claims about how those values will be used across all possible program executions -- including ones that can't physically happen.
I would cheerfully agree with you that the cognitive process (or program execution) is carried out by physical processes. Of course. But the subject of that process isn't the mechanism. There's nothing very strange about this, as far as I can tell. It's routine for programs and programmers to talk about "infinite lists"; obviously there is no such thing in the physical world, but it is a very useful abstraction.
By the way, I think your Bugs Bunny example fails. When I talk to somebody about Bugs Bunny, I am able to make myself understood. The other person and I are able to talk, in every sense that matters, about the same thing. But we don't share the same mental states. Conversely, my mental picture isn't isomorphic to any particular set of photons; it's a composite. Somehow, that doesn't defeat practical communication.
The case might be clearer for purely literary characters. When I talk about the character King Lear, I certainly am not saying something about the physical copy I read! Consider the perfectly ordinary (and true) sentence "King Lear had three daughters." That's not a claim about ink, it's a claim about the mental models created in competent speakers of English by the work (which itself is an abstraction, not a physical thing). Those models are physically embodied, but they are not physical things! There's no set of quarks you can point to and say "there's the mental model."
This is where we disagree. Those mental models are simply arrangements of matter. The fact that it feels like you're referring something separate from an arrangement of matter-memory in your brain is another thing all together. The reason that practical communication works at all is that there is an extreme amount of mutual information held between the set of features which you use to categorize the physical memory of, say, Bugs Bunny, and the features used to categorize Bugs in someone else's mind. You can reference your brain's physical memory in such a way as to cause another's physical memory to reference something, and if an algorithm sorts the mutual information of these concepts until it finds a maximum, and common experience then forms all sorts of additional memories about what wound up being referenced, it is not surprising at all that a purely physical model of concepts would allow communication. I don't see how anything you've said represents more than an assertion that it feels to you as if abstractions are not simply the brain matter that they are made out of in your mind. It's not a convincing reason for me to think abstractions have ontological properties. I think the hypothesis that it just feels that way since my brain is made of meat and I can't look at the wiring schematics is more likely.
This is starting to feel like a shallow game of definition-bending. I don't think we're disagreeing about any testable claim. So I'm not going to argue about why your definition is wrong, but I will describe why I think it's less useful in expressing the sorts of claims we make about the world.
When we talk about whether two mental models are similar, the similarity function we use is representation-independent. You and I might have very similar mental models, even if you are thinking with superconducting wires in liquid helium and our physical brains have nothing in common. Not being willing to talk honestly about abstractions makes it hard to ask how closely aligned two mental models are -- and that's a useful question to ask, since it helps predict speech-acts.
Conversely, saying that "everything is a physical property" deprives us of what was previously a useful category. A toaster is physical in a way that an eight-dimensional vector space is not and in a way that a not-yet-produced toaster is not. I want a word to capture that difference.
In particular, physical objects, as most of the world uses the term, means that objects have position and mass that evolve in predictable ways. It's sensible to ask what a toaster weighs. It's not sensible to ask what a mental model weighs.
I think your definitions here mean that you can't actually explain ordinary ostensive reference. There is a toaster over there, and a mental model over here, and there is some correspondence. And the way most of the world uses language, I can have the same referential relationship to a fictional person as to a real person, as to a toaster.
And I think I'm now done with the topic.
I think more salient examples that make this question hard are not going to be borne out of trying to come up with something increasingly abstract. The more puzzling cognitive objects to explain are when you apply unphysical transformations to obvious objects... like taking a dog and imagining it stretched out to the length of a football field. Or a person with a torus-like hole in their abdomen. But these are simply images in the brain. That the semantic content of the image can be interpreted as strange unions of other cognitive objects is not a reason to think that the cognitive object itself isn't physical.