While the purpose was to investigate invertebrate sentience, they also covered different species of vertebrates, plants and single-celled organisms for comparison.
I guess I’m desiring more of a common vocabulary here, maybe something like “here are some open questions about consciousness that are cruxy, here’s where [our organization] ended up on each of those questions, here are some things that could change our mind.”
Luke did a good job of this in his report. From a quick look at Rethink Priorities’ consciousness stuff, I’m not sure what they concluded about the important open questions. (e.g. Where do they land on IIT? Where do they land on panpsychism? What premises would I have to hold to agree with their conclusions?)
I should probably only speak for myself and not the entire team, but I think the breakdown is something like:
Where do they land on IIT?
Quite skeptical / lean against
~
Where do they land on panpsychism?
Quite skeptical / lean against
~
What premises would I have to hold to agree with their conclusions?
The key assumptions are:
(1) epiphenomenalism (in the traditional sense) is false
(2) methodological naturalism
(3) “inference to the best explanation” is a worthwhile method in this case
~
here are some open questions about consciousness that are cruxy, here’s where [our organization] ended up on each of those questions, here are some things that could change our mind
We largely chose not to do this because we mostly just agree with what Luke wrote and didn’t think we would be able to meaningfully improve upon it.
Thanks for highlighting; I had only thought a little about RP’s work on consciousness. I’ll take a closer look. (This essay seems especially relevant.)
Have you seen Rethink Priorities work on this? https://www.rethinkpriorities.org/invertebrate-sentience-table
While the purpose was to investigate invertebrate sentience, they also covered different species of vertebrates, plants and single-celled organisms for comparison.
I guess I’m desiring more of a common vocabulary here, maybe something like “here are some open questions about consciousness that are cruxy, here’s where [our organization] ended up on each of those questions, here are some things that could change our mind.”
Luke did a good job of this in his report. From a quick look at Rethink Priorities’ consciousness stuff, I’m not sure what they concluded about the important open questions. (e.g. Where do they land on IIT? Where do they land on panpsychism? What premises would I have to hold to agree with their conclusions?)
I should probably only speak for myself and not the entire team, but I think the breakdown is something like:
Quite skeptical / lean against
~
Quite skeptical / lean against
~
The key assumptions are:
(1) epiphenomenalism (in the traditional sense) is false
(2) methodological naturalism
(3) “inference to the best explanation” is a worthwhile method in this case
~
We largely chose not to do this because we mostly just agree with what Luke wrote and didn’t think we would be able to meaningfully improve upon it.
Thanks!
fwiw I found your comment really helpful & I think the RP content would benefit from including a sketch like this.
Thanks for highlighting; I had only thought a little about RP’s work on consciousness. I’ll take a closer look. (This essay seems especially relevant.)
Yeah, I’d recommend reading that essay, the feature reports, and also the cause profile.
Got it, thanks!