Bentham’s bulldog here! It seems like you’re calculating the number of distinct people—in the sense of the number of people that differs regarding some mental or physical property. But that’s not what’s relevant. SIA favors theories with Beth 2 copies of the same person.
omnizoid
Karma: 221
First of all, the claim that wild animal suffering is serious doesn’t depend on the claim that animals suffer more than they are happy. I happen to think human suffering is very serious, even though I think humans live positive lives.
Second, I don’t think it’s depressive bias infecting my judgments. I am quite happy—actually to a rather unusual degree. Instead, the reason to think that animals live mostly bad lives is that nearly every animal lives a very short life that culminates in a painful death on account of R-selection—if you live only ~a week, you don’t have enough positive experiences to outweigh the badness of a painful death.
Regarding the claim that I should be speaking out against factory farming, um...I’m not sure if you’ve read the rest of my writing.
https://benthams.substack.com/p/factory-farming-delenda-est
https://benthams.substack.com/p/weve-created-hell-its-called-factory
Well, sometimes getting a lot of arguments for a view should convince you of the view.
Yes oops
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.
But not all possible people are continuous wavefunctions!