I share your skepticism about Luke's statement (but I've been waiting to criticize until he finishes his sequence to see if he addresses the problems later).
My goal here is to get people to feel the intuition that "I ought to do X" means something, and that thing is not "I think I ought to do X" or "I would think that I ought to do X if I were smarter and some other stuff".
To help pump that intuition, consider this analogy:
"X is true" (where X is a mathematical statement) means something, and that thing is not "I think X is true" or "I would think that X is true if I were smarter and some other stuff".
On the other hand, I think it's also possible that "I ought to do X" doesn't really mean anything. See my What does a calculator mean by "2"?. (ETA: To clarify, I mean some usages of "ought" may not really mean anything. There are some usages that clearly do, for example "If you want to accomplish X, then you ought to do Y" can in principle be straightforwardly reduced to a mathematical statement about decision theory, assuming that our current strong intuition that there is such a thing as "the right decision theory" is correct.)
I'll first try to restate your position in order to check my understanding. Let me know if I don't do it justice.
People use "should" in several different ways. Most of these ways can be "reducible to physics", or in other words can be restated as talking about how our universe is, without losing any of the intended meaning. Some of these ways can't be so reduced (they are talking about the world of "is not") but those usages are simply meaningless and can be safely ignored.
I agree that many usages of "should" can be reduced to physics. (Or perhaps instead to mathematics.) But there may be other usages that can't be so reduced, and which are not clearly safe to ignore. Originally I was planning to wait for you to list the usages of "should" that can be reduced, and then show that there are other usages that are not obviously talking about "the world of is" but are not clearly meaningless either. (Of course I hope that your reductions do cover all of the important/interesting usages, but I'm not expecting that to be the case.)
Since you ask for my criticism now, I'll just give an example that seems to be one of the hardest to...
People who do feel that intuition run into trouble. This is because "I ought to do X' does not refer to anything that exists. How can you make a statement that doesn't refer to anything that exists?
It refers to my preferences which are physically encoded in my brain. It feels like it doesn't refer to anything that exists because I don't have complete introspective access to the mechanisms by which my brain decides that it wants something.
On top of that, ought refers to lots of different things, and as far as I can tell, most ought statements are su...
Will and I just spoke on the phone, so here's another way to present our discussion:
Imagine a species of artificial agents. These agents have a list of belief statements that relate physical phenomena to normative properties (let's call them 'moral primitives'):
These agents also have a list of belief statements about physical phenomena in general:
How can you make a statement that doesn't refer to anything that exists? I've done it, and my reasoning process is still intact, and nothing has blown up. Everything seems to be fine. No one has explained to me what isn't fine about this. Since it's intuitive, why would you not want to do it that way?
Clearly, you can make statements about things that don't exist. People do it all the time, and I don't object to it. I enjoy works of fiction, too. But if the aim of our dialogue is true claims about reality, then you've got to talk about things that exist ...
I made a more topical comment to Wei_Dai's reply to this thread, but I felt it was worth adding that if anyone is interested in a work of fiction that touches on this subject, the novel The Broom of the System, by David Foster Wallace, is worth a look.
Can you explain what implications (if any) this "naive" metaethics has on the problem how to build an FAI?
Let me have another go at this, since I've now rewritten the is-ought section of 'Pluralistic Moral Reductionism' (PMR).
This time around, I was more clear that of course it's true that, as you say:
we can make statements about what should be done and what should not be done that cannot be reduced, by definition, to statements about the physical world
We can make reducible 'ought' statements. We can make irreducible 'ought' statements. We can exhibit non-cognitive (non-asserting) verbal behaviors employing the sound 'ought'.
For the purposes of the PMR pos...
Suppose an AI wants to find out what Bob means when he says "water".
This thought experiment can be sharpened by asking what Bob means by "1027". By using Bob as an intermediary, we inevitably lose some precision.
People who do feel that intuition run into trouble. This is because "I ought to do X' does not refer to anything that exists. How can you make a statement that doesn't refer to anything that exists? I've done it, and my reasoning process is still intact, and nothing has blown up. Everything seems to be fine. No one has explained to me what isn't fine about this.
Ok, I'll bite. Why does "I ought to X" have to refer to any thing?
When I see atucker's comment, for instance;
...It refers to my preferences which are physically encoded in my brain.
"A Flatland Argument" includes a multitude of problems. It contains a few strawmen, which then turn into non sequiturs when you say that they demonstrate that we often say irreducible things. At least that's what I think you mean by the trivial statement "Not every set of claims is reducible to every other set of claims."
And yet your examples are answerable or full of holes! Why not mention the holes rather than blaming the reductionism (or, in the case of some strawmen, total lack thereof), or mention the reduction and forget the wh...
It seems clear to me that I can multiply about what I care about, so I don't know quite what you want to say.
Since it's intuitive, why would you not want to do it that way?
What seems wrong with the obvious answer?
Do you think a FOOM'd self-modifying AI that cares about humanity's CEV would likely do what you consider 'right'? Why or why not? (If you object to the question, please address that issue separately.)
I don't understand what you mean, here. I'm not sure what you mean by 'true' or 'useful', I guess. I'm talking about true claims in this sense.
I mean what you mean by "true", or maybe something very similar.
By "useful" I mean "those claims that could help someone come to a decision about their actions"
Which one is that, and what does everybody already know it to mean?
It's what people say when they say "should" but don't precede it with "if". Some people on lesswrong think it means:
[you should do X] = [X maximizes this complicated function that can be computed from my brain state]
Some think it means:
[you should do X] = [X maximizes whatever complicated function is computed from my brain state]
and I think:
[you should do X] = [the statement that, if believed, would cause one to do X]
or rather [you should do X] = [the statement that, if believed, would cause one to do X if one were an ideal and completely non akrasic agent]
I aim to make several arguments in the post that we can make statements about what should be done and what should not be done that cannot be reduced, by definition, to statements about the physical world.
A Naive Argument
Lukeprog says this in one of his posts:
If someone makes a claim of the 'ought' type, either they are talking about the world of is, or they are talking about the world of is not. If they are talking about the world of is not, then I quickly lose interest because the world of is not isn't my subject of interest.
I would like to question that statement. I would guess that lukeprog's chief subject of interest is figuring out what to do with the options presented to him. His interest is, therefore, in figuring out what he ought to do.
Consider the reasoning process that takes him from observations about the world to actions. He sees something, and then thinks, and then thinks some more, and then decides. Moreover, he can, if he chooses, express every step of this reasoning process in words. Does he really lose interest at the last step?
My goal here is to get people to feel the intuition that "I ought to do X" means something, and that thing is not "I think I ought to do X" or "I would think that I ought to do X if I were smarter and some other stuff".
(If you don't, I'm not sure what to do.)
People who do feel that intuition run into trouble. This is because "I ought to do X' does not refer to anything that exists. How can you make a statement that doesn't refer to anything that exists?
I've done it, and my reasoning process is still intact, and nothing has blown up. Everything seems to be fine. No one has explained to me what isn't fine about this.
Since it's intuitive, why would you not want to do it that way?
(You can argue that certain words, for certain people, do not refer to what one ought to do. But it's a different matter to suggest that no word refers to what one ought to do beyond facts about what is.)
A Flatland Argument
"I'm not interested in words, I'm interested in things. Words are just sequences of sounds or images. There's no way a sequence of arbitrary symbols could imply another sequence, or inform a decision."
"I understand how logical definitions work. I can see how, from a small set of axioms, you can derive a large number of interesting facts. But I'm not interested in words without definitions. What does "That thing, over there?" mean? Taboo finger-pointing."
"You can make statements about observations, that much is obvious. You can even talk about patterns in observations, like "the sun rises in the morning". But I don't understand your claim that there's no chocolate cake at the center of the sun. Is it about something you can see? If not, I'm not interested."
"Claims about the past make perfect sense, but I don't understand what you mean when you say something is going to happen. Sure, I see that chair, and I remember seeing the chair in the past, but what do you mean that the chair will still be there tomorrow? Taboo "will"."
Not every set of claims is reducible to every other set of claims. There is nothing special about the set "claims about the state of the world, including one's place in it and ability to affect it." If you add, however, ought-claims, then you will get a very special set - the set of all information you need to make correct decisions.
I can't see a reason to make claims that aren't reducible, by definition, to that.
The Bootstrapping Trick
Suppose an AI wants to find out what Bob means when he says "water'. AI could ask him if various items were and were not water. But Bob might get temporarily confused in any number of ways - he could mix up his words, he could hallucinate, or anything else. So the AI decides instead to wait. The AI will give Bob time, and everything else he needs, to make the decision. In this way, by giving Bob all the abilities he needs to replicate his abstract concept of a process that decides if something is or is not "water", the AI can duplicate this process.
The following statement is true:
A substance is water (in Bob's language) if and only if Bob, given all the time, intelligence, and other resources he wants, decides that it is water.
But this is certainly not the definition of water! Imagine if Bob used this criterion to evaluate what was and was not water. He would suffer from an infinite regress. The definition of water is something else. The statement "This is water" reduces to a set of facts about this, not a set of facts about this and Bob's head.
The extension to morality should be obvious.
What one is forced to do by this argument, if one wants to speak only in physical statements, is to say that "should" has a really, really long definition that incorporates all components of human value. When a simple word has a really, really long definition, we should worry that something is up.
Well, why does it have a long definition? It has a long definition because that's what we believe is important. To say that people who use (in this sense) "should" to mean different things just disagree about definitions is to paper over and cover up the fact that they disagree about what's important.
What do I care about?
In this essay I talk about what I believe about rather than what I care about. What I care about seems like an entirely emotional question to me. I cannot Shut Up And Multiply about what I care about. If I do, in fact, Shut Up and Multiply, then it is because I believe that doing so is right. Suppose I believe that my future emotions will follow multiplication. I would have to, then, believe that I am going to self-modify into someone who multiplies. I would only do this because of a belief that doing so is right.
Belief and logical reasoning are an important part of how people on lesswrong think about morality, and I don't see how to incorporate them into a metaethics based not on beliefs, but on caring.