The metabolic energy argument makes sense. It’s unclear to me whether we should apply any kind of power law though since consciousness seems to be different in nature, as I view it as likely non-physical.
Only physical consciousness is falsifiable? I think so. So I believe it is better to focus on physicalist theories of consciousness. Relatedly, you may be interested in this discussion between me and Wladimir Alonso from the Welfare Footprint Institute (WFI) about whether sentience is binary.
Also, in regards to Bob’s book, it seems like it would make sense, rather than adding the model’s estimates together to instead act on each model separately, i.e. assigning 5% of resources to help animals according to the equality model, 25% according to the neurophysiological model, and 70% according to the proxies model. Then, within the 70% for the proxies model, we could assign 33% of resources to applying a high exponent to the welfare ranges, 33% to applying no exponent to the welfare ranges, and 33% to applying a low exponent to the welfare ranges.
Something like this is proposed in the article “Moral Uncertainty, Proportionality and Bargaining”.
The metabolic energy argument makes sense. It’s unclear to me whether we should apply any kind of power law though since consciousness seems to be different in nature, as I view it as likely non-physical.
Only physical consciousness is falsifiable? I think so. So I believe it is better to focus on physicalist theories of consciousness. Relatedly, you may be interested in this discussion between me and Wladimir Alonso from the Welfare Footprint Institute (WFI) about whether sentience is binary.
Something like this is proposed in the article “Moral Uncertainty, Proportionality and Bargaining”.