Thanks, Vasco. I think your final paragraph shows that our positions are now closer than they initially appeared, and that part of the disagreement came from asking the word sentience to do two different jobs: describe whether affective experience is present, and determine whether an entity has non-zero moral value. In our tool, it is used only in the first sense.
On the scientific question, yes: under a categorical account of sentience, arbitrarily small changes near the relevant biological threshold could in principle place otherwise extremely similar organisms on opposite sides of it. I do not regard this as incoherent. Continuous underlying variables can produce categorical system-level events; a neuron, for example, may or may not fire an action potential as its membrane potential crosses a threshold. This analogy does not establish that sentience is categorical, but it shows that gradual biological change does not rule out a categorical onset.
The sentience gate in our tool therefore does not assign moral worth. It asks whether welfare-relevant affective experience is plausible enough for an affective-ceiling analysis to be meaningful. Whether entities without sentience may nevertheless have moral value, or whether moral status should vary continuously, are separate normative questions.
So perhaps our remaining scientific disagreement is now quite narrow: whether the minimal presence of affective experience is itself graded or categorical. On almost everything surrounding that boundary, however, we seem to agree: the biological capacities supporting sentience, our evidence for it, and the affective range, resolution, and intensity that follow are all graded. That is quite a lot of common ground! :) Thanks, Vasco, for the careful and constructive exchange.
On the scientific question, yes: under a categorical account of sentience, arbitrarily small changes near the relevant biological threshold could in principle place otherwise extremely similar organisms on opposite sides of it.
Would it make sense to run WFF’s affective capacity analysis for only one of 2 organisms which only differ infinitesimally?
I do not regard this [the sentence quoted above] as incoherent. Continuous underlying variables can produce categorical system-level events; a neuron, for example, may or may not fire an action potential as its membrane potential crosses a threshold. This analogy does not establish that sentience is categorical, but it shows that gradual biological change does not rule out a categorical onset.
I found this example quite thought-provoking. Yet, I do not think neuronal firings are categorical. Membrane potential and neuronal firings are represented in the mid and bottom plots of Figure 9A below from section 9.1 of the book Neuronal Dynamics. Membrane potential varies continuously. It is not binary. So humans have to come up with a convention for which types of variations in it count as a firing. In principle, 2 different time series of the membrane potential could differ infinitesimally, and one have 0 firings while other has many firings which fall just short of counting as such. If one was interested in a property like the maximum membrane potential, it would make sense to analyse both time series
There is also no fact of the matter about whether a given membrane potential corresponds to a neuronal firing or not. The number of neuronal firings is a property of the time series of the membrane potential. It is not a property of a neuronal state. In contrast, I understand sentience (existence of affective experiences) is supposed to be a property of a state (of an entity at a given time). Membrane potential is a property of a state, and it is continuous/graded (not binary/categorical/sharp).
The physical world varies continuously. So I think all properties tracking it have to be continuous too. People point out phase transitions as evidence of categorical changes, but they involve continuous changes.
Would you keep the sentience gate in WFF if you thought it was a matter of human convention instead of scientific fact?
Thanks, Vasco. I had already acknowledged that the analogies were no longer helping, and then I fell into offering another one, so I concede that mistake. I do not think my underlying point is coming across, but I have laid it out as clearly as I can in our exchange. But just addressing your questions:
If one organism truly had affective experience and the other did not, the ceiling analysis would apply only to the former. For the latter, an affective ceiling would be inapplicable, not merely lower. If we could not tell which was which, the tool should reflect that uncertainty and proceed only conditionally.
(One clarification: this sentience gate belongs to our experimental Ψ approach, not to the core WFF).
Your final question captures the crux: if I regarded sentience as merely a matter of human convention, I would not retain it as a scientific gate. My position, as I mentioned before, is that whether anything feels good or bad is a real fact about the organism, even when we cannot determine it confidently.
I had already acknowledged that the analogies were no longer helping, and then I fell into offering another one, so I concede that mistake. I do not think my underlying point is coming across, but I have laid it out as clearly as I can in our exchange.
I personally found your analogy quite helpful. It gave me a chance to explain why I think many properties considered categorical are actually graded. In addition, I think trying to present properties which are categorical is important to illustrate sentience can be so too. The absence of any categorical properties would arguably be strong evidence against sentience being categorical.
Your final question captures the crux: if I regarded sentience as merely a matter of human convention, I would not retain it as a scientific gate.
Makes sense. I think sentience is a matter of human convention, which is why I would not use it as a scientific gate for the affective capacity analysis.
Thanks, Vasco. I think your final paragraph shows that our positions are now closer than they initially appeared, and that part of the disagreement came from asking the word sentience to do two different jobs: describe whether affective experience is present, and determine whether an entity has non-zero moral value. In our tool, it is used only in the first sense.
On the scientific question, yes: under a categorical account of sentience, arbitrarily small changes near the relevant biological threshold could in principle place otherwise extremely similar organisms on opposite sides of it. I do not regard this as incoherent. Continuous underlying variables can produce categorical system-level events; a neuron, for example, may or may not fire an action potential as its membrane potential crosses a threshold. This analogy does not establish that sentience is categorical, but it shows that gradual biological change does not rule out a categorical onset.
The sentience gate in our tool therefore does not assign moral worth. It asks whether welfare-relevant affective experience is plausible enough for an affective-ceiling analysis to be meaningful. Whether entities without sentience may nevertheless have moral value, or whether moral status should vary continuously, are separate normative questions.
So perhaps our remaining scientific disagreement is now quite narrow: whether the minimal presence of affective experience is itself graded or categorical. On almost everything surrounding that boundary, however, we seem to agree: the biological capacities supporting sentience, our evidence for it, and the affective range, resolution, and intensity that follow are all graded. That is quite a lot of common ground! :) Thanks, Vasco, for the careful and constructive exchange.
Would it make sense to run WFF’s affective capacity analysis for only one of 2 organisms which only differ infinitesimally?
I found this example quite thought-provoking. Yet, I do not think neuronal firings are categorical. Membrane potential and neuronal firings are represented in the mid and bottom plots of Figure 9A below from section 9.1 of the book Neuronal Dynamics. Membrane potential varies continuously. It is not binary. So humans have to come up with a convention for which types of variations in it count as a firing. In principle, 2 different time series of the membrane potential could differ infinitesimally, and one have 0 firings while other has many firings which fall just short of counting as such. If one was interested in a property like the maximum membrane potential, it would make sense to analyse both time series
There is also no fact of the matter about whether a given membrane potential corresponds to a neuronal firing or not. The number of neuronal firings is a property of the time series of the membrane potential. It is not a property of a neuronal state. In contrast, I understand sentience (existence of affective experiences) is supposed to be a property of a state (of an entity at a given time). Membrane potential is a property of a state, and it is continuous/graded (not binary/categorical/sharp).
The physical world varies continuously. So I think all properties tracking it have to be continuous too. People point out phase transitions as evidence of categorical changes, but they involve continuous changes.
Would you keep the sentience gate in WFF if you thought it was a matter of human convention instead of scientific fact?
Thanks, Vasco. I had already acknowledged that the analogies were no longer helping, and then I fell into offering another one, so I concede that mistake. I do not think my underlying point is coming across, but I have laid it out as clearly as I can in our exchange. But just addressing your questions:
If one organism truly had affective experience and the other did not, the ceiling analysis would apply only to the former. For the latter, an affective ceiling would be inapplicable, not merely lower. If we could not tell which was which, the tool should reflect that uncertainty and proceed only conditionally.
(One clarification: this sentience gate belongs to our experimental Ψ approach, not to the core WFF).
Your final question captures the crux: if I regarded sentience as merely a matter of human convention, I would not retain it as a scientific gate. My position, as I mentioned before, is that whether anything feels good or bad is a real fact about the organism, even when we cannot determine it confidently.
I personally found your analogy quite helpful. It gave me a chance to explain why I think many properties considered categorical are actually graded. In addition, I think trying to present properties which are categorical is important to illustrate sentience can be so too. The absence of any categorical properties would arguably be strong evidence against sentience being categorical.
Makes sense. I think sentience is a matter of human convention, which is why I would not use it as a scientific gate for the affective capacity analysis.