Hmm, I think any account of desire as moral grounds, which Kammerer suggests as an alternative, is going to face objections based on indeterminacy and justification like those Kammerer raises against (quasi-)phenomenal consciousness as moral grounds.
Indeterminacy: Kammerer talks about a multidimensional scale of desires. Why isn’t desire just indeterminate, too? Or, we can think of (quasi-)phenomenality as a multidimensional scale, too.[1]
Justification: Our own desires also appear to us to be phenomenal and important (probably in large part) because of their apparent phenomenality (tied to feelings, like fear, hunger and physical attraction, or otherwise conscious states, e.g. goals or moral views of which we are conscious). If and because they appear important due to their apparent phenomenality, they would also be undermined as normative grounds.[2] Kammerer talks about us finding “unconscious pains” to not matter intrinsically (or not much, anyway), but we would find the same of “unconscious desires”.[3]
For each creature, and even more for each species, there will be differences (sometimes slight, sometimes big) in the kinds of broadcasting of information in global workspaces, or in the kind of higher-order representation, etc., that they instantiate. The processes they instantiate will be similar in some respects to the processes constituting phenomenal consciousness, but also dissimilar in others; and there will be dissimilarities at various levels of abstractions (from the most abstract – the overall functional structure implemented – to the most concrete – the details of the implementation). Therefore, what these creatures will have is something that somewhat resembles (to various degrees) the “real thing out there” present in our case. Will the resemblance be such that the corresponding state also counts as phenomenally conscious, or not – will it be enough for the global broadcasting, the higher-order representation, etc., to be of the right kind – the kind that constitutes phenomenal consciousness? It is hard to see how there could be always be a fact of the matter here.
The reason why we were so strongly inclined to see sentience as a normative magic bullet in the first place (and then used it as a normative black box) was that the value of some phenomenal states seemed particularly obvious and beyond doubt. While normative skepticism seemed a credible threat in all kinds of non-phenomenal cases, with valenced phenomenal states – most typically, pain – it seemed that we were on sure grounds. Of course, feeling pain is bad – just focus on it and you will see for yourself! So, in spite of persisting ignorance regarding so many aspects of phenomenal consciousness, it seemed that we knew that it had this sort of particularly significant intrinsic value that made it able to be our normative magic bullet, because we could introspectively grasp this value in the most secure way.15 However, if reductive materialism/weak illusionism is true, our introspective grasp of phenomenal consciousness is, to a great extent, illusory: phenomenal consciousness really exists, but it does not exist in the way in which we introspectively grasp and characterize it. This undercuts our reason to believe that certain phenomenal states have a certain value: if introspection of phenomenal states is illusory – if phenomenal states are not as they seem to be – then it means that the conclusions of phenomenal introspection must be treated with great care and a high degree of suspicion, which entails that our introspective grasp of the value of phenomenal states cannot be highly trusted.
That phenomenal states seem of particular significance compared to neighboring non-phenomenal states manifests itself in the fact that we draw a series of stark normative contrasts. For example, we draw a stark normative contrast between phenomenal and their closest non-phenomenal equivalent. We care a lot about the intense pain that one might phenomenally experience during a medical procedure – arguably, because such pain seems really bad. On the other hand, if, thanks to anesthesia, a patient does not experience phenomenally conscious pain during surgery, their brain might still enter in nonphenomenally conscious states that are the non-phenomenal states closest to phenomenal pain (something like “subliminal pain” or “unconscious pain”) – but we will probably not worry too much. If indeed we fully believe these states to be non-phenomenal – to have no associated subjective experience, “nothing it’s like” to be in them – we will probably judge that they have little intrinsic moral relevance – if at all – and we will not do much to avoid them. They will be a matter of curiosity, not of deep worry.
Hmm, I think any account of desire as moral grounds, which Kammerer suggests as an alternative, is going to face objections based on indeterminacy and justification like those Kammerer raises against (quasi-)phenomenal consciousness as moral grounds.
Indeterminacy: Kammerer talks about a multidimensional scale of desires. Why isn’t desire just indeterminate, too? Or, we can think of (quasi-)phenomenality as a multidimensional scale, too.[1]
Justification: Our own desires also appear to us to be phenomenal and important (probably in large part) because of their apparent phenomenality (tied to feelings, like fear, hunger and physical attraction, or otherwise conscious states, e.g. goals or moral views of which we are conscious). If and because they appear important due to their apparent phenomenality, they would also be undermined as normative grounds.[2] Kammerer talks about us finding “unconscious pains” to not matter intrinsically (or not much, anyway), but we would find the same of “unconscious desires”.[3]