Yes oops
omnizoid
Karma: 162
I refer you to my response to Said Achmiz’s comment. Do you have a better way of estimating animal consciousness? Sure, the report isn’t perfect, but it’s better than alternatives. It’s irrational to say “well, we don’t know exactly how much they suffer, so let’s ignore them entirely.” https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/refusing-to-quantify-is-refusing
Fischer’s not against using it for tradeoffs, he’s against using it as a singular indicator of worth.
But then you’d lose out on being the creatures.
The dark arts of expected value calculations relying on conservatively downgrading the most detailed report on the subject. What a joke.
But I’m not trolleying them—I’m talking about how bad their suffering is.
As they describe in the report, the philosophical assumptions are mostly inconsequential and assumed for simplicity. The rest of your critique is just describing what they did, not an objection to it. It’s not precise and they admit quite high uncertainty, but it’s definitely better than alternatives (E.g. neuron counts).
It’s not that piece. It’s another one that got eaten by a Substack glitch unfortuantely—hopefully it will be back up soon!
He thinks it’s very near zero if there is a gap.
If you half and don’t think that your credence should be 2⁄3 in heads after finding out it’s Monday you violate the conservation of evidence. If you’re going to be told what time it is, your credence might go up but has no chance of going down—if it’s day 2 your credence will spike to 100, if it’s day 1 it wont’ change.
Yes—Lewis held this, for instance, in the most famous paper on the topic.
Lots of people disagree with 2.
I didn’t make a betting argument.
Impervious to reason? I sent you an 8,000 word essay giving reasons for it!
Just to be clear, I banned you because I find your comments to be annoying consistently. You are, in fact, the first commenter I’ve ever banned.
As for the question, they look at the various neural correlates of suffering on different theories, split their credence across them, and divy up the results based on expected consciousness. The report is more detailed.
It may be imaginable, but if it’s false, who cares. Like, suppose I argue, that fundamental reality has to meet constraint X and view Y is the only plausible view that does so. Listing off a bunch of random ones that meet constraint X but are false doesn’t help you .
Well, UDASSA is false https://joecarlsmith.com/2021/11/28/anthropics-and-the-universal-distribution. As I argue elsewhere, any view other than SIA implies the doomsday argument. The number of possible beings isn’t equal to the number of “physically limited beings in our universe,” and there are different arrangements for the continuum points.
The argument for Beth 2 possible people is that it’s the powerset of continuum points. SIA gives reason to think you should assign a uniform prior across possible people. There could be a God-less universe with Beth 2 people, but I don’t know how that would work, and even if there’s some coherent model one can make work without sacrificing simplicity, P(Beth 2 people)|Theism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>P(Beth 2 people)|Atheism. You need to fill in the details more beyond just saying “there are Beth 2 people,” which will cost simplicity.
Remember, this is just part of a lengthy cumulative case.
Well, sometimes getting a lot of arguments for a view should convince you of the view.