This suggests that neuron count alone is too crude a metric (though perhaps useful when comparing organisms with very different brains).
I like to compare the sentience-adjusted welfare ranges (probability of sentience times the welfare range conditional on sentience) of organisms with neurons assuming they are proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponentâ. I consider exponents from 0 to 2 reasonable best guesses. An exponent of 0.188 explains very well the sentience-adjusted welfare ranges presented in Bobâs book (which rely on much more than the individual number of neurons). Below is a graph illustrating this.
For comparisons involving organisms with and without neurons, I would assume sentience-adjusted welfare ranges proportional to âindividual massâ^âexponentâ, or âmetabolic rateâ^âexponentâ. I do not think the specific proxy matters that much. In allometry, âthe study of the relationship of body size to shape,[1]anatomy, physiology and behaviourâ, âThe relationship between the two measured quantities is often expressed as a power law equation (allometric equation)â. If the sentience-adjusted welfare range is proportional to âproxy 1â^âexponent 1â, and âproxy 1â is proportional to âproxy 2â^âexponent 2â, the sentience-adjusted welfare range is proportional to âproxy 1â^(âexponent 1â*âexponent 2â). So the results for âproxy 1â and exponent âexponent 1â*âexponent 2â are the same as those for âproxy 2â and âexponent 2âł.
You may be interested in these posts:
What If We Assumed That All Animals Are Conscious?.
The Conscious Nematode: Exploring Hallmarks of Minimal Phenomenal Consciousness in Caenorhabditis Elegans.
I like to compare the sentience-adjusted welfare ranges (probability of sentience times the welfare range conditional on sentience) of organisms with neurons assuming they are proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponentâ. I consider exponents from 0 to 2 reasonable best guesses. An exponent of 0.188 explains very well the sentience-adjusted welfare ranges presented in Bobâs book (which rely on much more than the individual number of neurons). Below is a graph illustrating this.
For comparisons involving organisms with and without neurons, I would assume sentience-adjusted welfare ranges proportional to âindividual massâ^âexponentâ, or âmetabolic rateâ^âexponentâ. I do not think the specific proxy matters that much. In allometry, âthe study of the relationship of body size to shape,[1] anatomy, physiology and behaviourâ, âThe relationship between the two measured quantities is often expressed as a power law equation (allometric equation)â. If the sentience-adjusted welfare range is proportional to âproxy 1â^âexponent 1â, and âproxy 1â is proportional to âproxy 2â^âexponent 2â, the sentience-adjusted welfare range is proportional to âproxy 1â^(âexponent 1â*âexponent 2â). So the results for âproxy 1â and exponent âexponent 1â*âexponent 2â are the same as those for âproxy 2â and âexponent 2âł.
Thanks for the detailed response and the links!
The exponent-based approach is interesting, though Iâm still a little uncertain about its validity. Iâll check out the posts!
Here is some more context about the exponent-based approach.