Activity feed
#397 · Dirk Meulenbelt, 2 months agoI think it's different from Pascal's wager, as with Pascal's wager you have infinite, or many (all known religions) wagers. (Which god?) Whereas with animal consciousness we have only one wager, that we're currently not sure of, on which we're wagering a lot of potential animal suffering. Furthermore, we are not on our deathbed, and hence have the luxury of time to consider our trade.
I see that, according to Wikipedia, Pascal’s detractors criticized the wager for not addressing “the problem of which religion and which God should be worshipped”, but I don’t see how that is relevant here. Maybe there are some differences between how you apply the wager and how Pascal applied it, but the core logic is the same and equally invalid.
As I write in the first link, the videos “mostly show bugs and nonsensical behavior, things that wouldn’t happen if animals were sentient.”
#375 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months ago[W]ild nature is evil and […] we should seek to get rid of it (if we continue to believe in animal consciousness).
The suffering of some is not an obligation on others (Rand).
Not an obligation, but it would be a Morally Good Thing, whereas without sentience it would be pointless. (Or rather, a Morally Bad Thing, as this would be costly to sentient humans.)
#374 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months ago[C]onsidering our own (recognised) fallibility […] we should consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
There’s lots of evidence: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/evidence-of-animal-insentience
And reasoning:
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/konrad-lorenz-hacked-animals
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-discussion-tree
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-faq
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/the-animal-rights-community-is-based-on-fear-a
What are the criteria by which this is evidence?
#370 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoI think you’ve replaced my question with a different one.
I asked whether you’d like to break your post up into several ideas to protect against bulk criticism.
You replaced the question with: ‘what is the core of your idea?’ And then you answered the replacement question instead of mine.
So your original post still stands (#364), and is still vulnerable to bulk criticism. I conclude that you are not concerned with bulk criticism and I will comment on the original post accordingly.
I have to admit I was unsure how many claims I actually made, and excused myself from the burden of having to figure it out with the following excuse: I expect that many potential users of your platform would make this error and therefore we should try to run with it. I also don't mind the bulk criticism.
#373 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months ago[S]uppose that we have a reasonable (best available) current explanation for why animals are not conscious, I don't think that puts us in a Pascal's wager situation, because considering our own (recognised) fallibility, and the asymmetry of being right and wrong with respect to moral outcomes: enormous suffering versus inconvenience, we should consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
You say this wouldn’t put us in a Pascal’s wager situation, but then you employ more or less the same logic as Pascal: comparing a huge, potential downside with a certain, minor downside, and then choosing the minor downside.
I think it's different from Pascal's wager, as with Pascal's wager you have infinite, or many (all known religions) wagers. (Which god?) Whereas with animal consciousness we have only one wager, that we're currently not sure of, on which we're wagering a lot of potential animal suffering. Furthermore, we are not on our deathbed, and hence have the luxury of time to consider our trade.
#364 · Dirk Meulenbelt, 3 months agoUnless we are solipsists, we conclude that all human beings are conscious.
A simple extrapolation to animals would be to say that those with similar characteristics to humans, could also have consciousness.
I am not aware of any strong theories on animals being unconscious, other than intuitions of some AGI researchers who conjecture that sentience hangs together with unique learning capabilities of humans.
And suppose that we have a reasonable (best available) current explanation for why animals are not conscious, I don't think that puts us in a Pascal's wager situation, because considering our own (recognised) fallibility, and the asymmetry of being right and wrong with respect to moral outcomes: enormous suffering versus inconvenience, we should consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
This implies that we should treat animals carefully, as their sentience allows them to feel pain, until we have a lot more information. Interestingly, this also implies that wild nature is evil and that we should seek to get rid of it (if we continue to believe in animal consciousness).
TL;DR: We only have vague conjectures on animal consciousness
[W]ild nature is evil and […] we should seek to get rid of it (if we continue to believe in animal consciousness).
The suffering of some is not an obligation on others (Rand).
#364 · Dirk Meulenbelt, 3 months agoUnless we are solipsists, we conclude that all human beings are conscious.
A simple extrapolation to animals would be to say that those with similar characteristics to humans, could also have consciousness.
I am not aware of any strong theories on animals being unconscious, other than intuitions of some AGI researchers who conjecture that sentience hangs together with unique learning capabilities of humans.
And suppose that we have a reasonable (best available) current explanation for why animals are not conscious, I don't think that puts us in a Pascal's wager situation, because considering our own (recognised) fallibility, and the asymmetry of being right and wrong with respect to moral outcomes: enormous suffering versus inconvenience, we should consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
This implies that we should treat animals carefully, as their sentience allows them to feel pain, until we have a lot more information. Interestingly, this also implies that wild nature is evil and that we should seek to get rid of it (if we continue to believe in animal consciousness).
TL;DR: We only have vague conjectures on animal consciousness
[C]onsidering our own (recognised) fallibility […] we should consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
There’s lots of evidence: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/evidence-of-animal-insentience
And reasoning:
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/konrad-lorenz-hacked-animals
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-discussion-tree
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-faq
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/the-animal-rights-community-is-based-on-fear-a
#364 · Dirk Meulenbelt, 3 months agoUnless we are solipsists, we conclude that all human beings are conscious.
A simple extrapolation to animals would be to say that those with similar characteristics to humans, could also have consciousness.
I am not aware of any strong theories on animals being unconscious, other than intuitions of some AGI researchers who conjecture that sentience hangs together with unique learning capabilities of humans.
And suppose that we have a reasonable (best available) current explanation for why animals are not conscious, I don't think that puts us in a Pascal's wager situation, because considering our own (recognised) fallibility, and the asymmetry of being right and wrong with respect to moral outcomes: enormous suffering versus inconvenience, we should consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
This implies that we should treat animals carefully, as their sentience allows them to feel pain, until we have a lot more information. Interestingly, this also implies that wild nature is evil and that we should seek to get rid of it (if we continue to believe in animal consciousness).
TL;DR: We only have vague conjectures on animal consciousness
[S]uppose that we have a reasonable (best available) current explanation for why animals are not conscious, I don't think that puts us in a Pascal's wager situation, because considering our own (recognised) fallibility, and the asymmetry of being right and wrong with respect to moral outcomes: enormous suffering versus inconvenience, we should consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
You say this wouldn’t put us in a Pascal’s wager situation, but then you employ more or less the same logic as Pascal: comparing a huge, potential downside with a certain, minor downside, and then choosing the minor downside.
#364 · Dirk Meulenbelt, 3 months agoUnless we are solipsists, we conclude that all human beings are conscious.
A simple extrapolation to animals would be to say that those with similar characteristics to humans, could also have consciousness.
I am not aware of any strong theories on animals being unconscious, other than intuitions of some AGI researchers who conjecture that sentience hangs together with unique learning capabilities of humans.
And suppose that we have a reasonable (best available) current explanation for why animals are not conscious, I don't think that puts us in a Pascal's wager situation, because considering our own (recognised) fallibility, and the asymmetry of being right and wrong with respect to moral outcomes: enormous suffering versus inconvenience, we should consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
This implies that we should treat animals carefully, as their sentience allows them to feel pain, until we have a lot more information. Interestingly, this also implies that wild nature is evil and that we should seek to get rid of it (if we continue to believe in animal consciousness).
TL;DR: We only have vague conjectures on animal consciousness
A simple extrapolation to animals would be to say that those with similar characteristics to humans, could also have consciousness.
In addition to #371, this also sounds vague. Which “similar characteristics” and why?
#364 · Dirk Meulenbelt, 3 months agoUnless we are solipsists, we conclude that all human beings are conscious.
A simple extrapolation to animals would be to say that those with similar characteristics to humans, could also have consciousness.
I am not aware of any strong theories on animals being unconscious, other than intuitions of some AGI researchers who conjecture that sentience hangs together with unique learning capabilities of humans.
And suppose that we have a reasonable (best available) current explanation for why animals are not conscious, I don't think that puts us in a Pascal's wager situation, because considering our own (recognised) fallibility, and the asymmetry of being right and wrong with respect to moral outcomes: enormous suffering versus inconvenience, we should consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
This implies that we should treat animals carefully, as their sentience allows them to feel pain, until we have a lot more information. Interestingly, this also implies that wild nature is evil and that we should seek to get rid of it (if we continue to believe in animal consciousness).
TL;DR: We only have vague conjectures on animal consciousness
A simple extrapolation to animals would be to say that those with similar characteristics to humans, could also have consciousness.
Sounds inductive.
#369 · Dirk Meulenbelt, 3 months agoThe idea is: given that we know little about animal consciousness, it's better to err on the safe side given the asymmetry of inconvenience versus mass animal suffering.
I think you can attack this by either pointing out how that is a faulty way of thinking about a 'lack of evidence', or that there is indeed enough information on animal consciousness.
I'm mostly interested in finding evidence or thinking of cases that would be evidence, and less about the implications on morality.
I think you’ve replaced my question with a different one.
I asked whether you’d like to break your post up into several ideas to protect against bulk criticism.
You replaced the question with: ‘what is the core of your idea?’ And then you answered the replacement question instead of mine.
So your original post still stands (#364), and is still vulnerable to bulk criticism. I conclude that you are not concerned with bulk criticism and I will comment on the original post accordingly.
#367 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoThanks for your contribution, Dirk.
Your post contains several ideas. In the future, you would benefit from submitting them separately so they have to be criticized separately. As it stands, a single criticism of your post will mark all of the ideas contained therein as problematic. I call this a ‘bulk criticism’, see #362.
To protect against bulk criticism, try to submit one idea per post. You can post multiple sibling ideas (not nested ideas) by using the form where it says “Add another top-level idea to the discussion” for each one.
Would you like to break your post up into several ideas before I offer criticism? They can still reference each other the same way I do above with idea #362 – if you type # followed by a number, it will turn into a link to the corresponding idea, much like GitHub does with issues.
The idea is: given that we know little about animal consciousness, it's better to err on the safe side given the asymmetry of inconvenience versus mass animal suffering.
I think you can attack this by either pointing out how that is a faulty way of thinking about a 'lack of evidence', or that there is indeed enough information on animal consciousness.
I'm mostly interested in finding evidence or thinking of cases that would be evidence, and less about the implications on morality.
Clarify ideas should be siblings not nested
4 unchanged lines collapsedTo protect against bulk criticism, try to submit one idea perpost.↵ ↵ Wouldpost. You can post multiple sibling ideas (not nested ideas) by using the form where it says “Add another top-level idea to the discussion” for each one.↵ ↵ Would you like to break your post up into several ideas before I offer criticism? They can still reference each other the same way I do above with idea #362 – if you type # followed by a number, it will turn into a link to the corresponding idea, much like GitHub does with issues.
#364 · Dirk Meulenbelt, 3 months agoUnless we are solipsists, we conclude that all human beings are conscious.
A simple extrapolation to animals would be to say that those with similar characteristics to humans, could also have consciousness.
I am not aware of any strong theories on animals being unconscious, other than intuitions of some AGI researchers who conjecture that sentience hangs together with unique learning capabilities of humans.
And suppose that we have a reasonable (best available) current explanation for why animals are not conscious, I don't think that puts us in a Pascal's wager situation, because considering our own (recognised) fallibility, and the asymmetry of being right and wrong with respect to moral outcomes: enormous suffering versus inconvenience, we should consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
This implies that we should treat animals carefully, as their sentience allows them to feel pain, until we have a lot more information. Interestingly, this also implies that wild nature is evil and that we should seek to get rid of it (if we continue to believe in animal consciousness).
TL;DR: We only have vague conjectures on animal consciousness
Thanks for your contribution, Dirk.
Your post contains several ideas. In the future, you would benefit from submitting them separately so they have to be criticized separately. As it stands, a single criticism of your post will mark all of the ideas contained therein as problematic. I call this a ‘bulk criticism’, see #362.
To protect against bulk criticism, try to submit one idea per post.
Would you like to break your post up into several ideas before I offer criticism? They can still reference each other the same way I do above with idea #362 – if you type # followed by a number, it will turn into a link to the corresponding idea, much like GitHub does with issues.
#363 · Dirk Meulenbelt, 3 months agoUnless we are solipsists, we conclude that all human beings are conscious.
A simple extrapolation to animals would be to say that those with similar characteristics to humans, could also have consciousness.
I am not aware of any strong theories on animals being unconscious, other than intuitions of some AGI researchers who conjecture that sentience hangs together with unique learning capabilities of humans.
And suppose that we have a reasonable (best available) current explanation for why animals are not conscious, I don't think that puts us in a Pascal's wager situation, because considering our own (recognised) fallibility, and the asymmetry of being right and wrong with respect to moral outcomes, we could consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
This implies that we should treat animals carefully, as their sentience allows them to feel pain, until we have a lot more information. Interestingly, this also implies that wild nature is evil and that we should seek to get rid of it (if we continue to believe in animal consciousness).
TL;DR: We only have vague conjectures on animal consciousness
Superseded by #364.
6 unchanged lines collapsedAnd suppose that we have a reasonable (best available) current explanation for why animals are not conscious, I don't think that puts us in a Pascal's wager situation, because considering our own (recognised) fallibility, and the asymmetry of being right and wrong with respect to moraloutcomes,outcomes: enormous suffering versus inconvenience, wecouldshould consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.4 unchanged lines collapsed
Figuring out whether animals have consciousness has implications for how we think about animal welfare, and also how we think about creativity
Unless we are solipsists, we conclude that all human beings are conscious.
A simple extrapolation to animals would be to say that those with similar characteristics to humans, could also have consciousness.
I am not aware of any strong theories on animals being unconscious, other than intuitions of some AGI researchers who conjecture that sentience hangs together with unique learning capabilities of humans.
And suppose that we have a reasonable (best available) current explanation for why animals are not conscious, I don't think that puts us in a Pascal's wager situation, because considering our own (recognised) fallibility, and the asymmetry of being right and wrong with respect to moral outcomes, we could consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
This implies that we should treat animals carefully, as their sentience allows them to feel pain, until we have a lot more information. Interestingly, this also implies that wild nature is evil and that we should seek to get rid of it (if we continue to believe in animal consciousness).
TL;DR: We only have vague conjectures on animal consciousness
44 unchanged lines collapsedIn this tree, `I` is considered problematic. Although `C11` has been neutralized by `C21` and `C22`, `C12` still needs to be addressed. In addition, `C23` *would* have neutralized `C13`, but `C31` and `C32` make `C23`problematic again,problematic, so `C13` makes `I` problematic as well.26 unchanged lines collapsed
Add tree diagrams and improve wording throughout
*Veritula* (Latin for ‘a bit of truth’) provides an objective, partly automated way to tentatively determine whether a given idea is true or false. It follows Karl Popper’s epistemology, which says that ideas are assumed true until refuted. This approach leaves us free to make *bold conjectures* and use the full arsenal at our disposal to *criticize* these conjectures in order to *correct errors* and *seek truth*. It’s a creative and critical approach. **Veritula is a programmatic implementation of Popper’sepistemology.**↵ ↵ If a criticism ofepistemology.**↵ ↵ Consider an idea `I`:↵ ↵ ```↵ I↵ ```↵ ↵ Since it has no criticisms, it iscriticized in turn, the criticismconsidered *unproblematic*. It isneutralizedrational to adopt it, tentatively consider it true, andthe originalact in accordance with it. Conversely, it would be *irrational* to reject it. Next, someone submits a criticism `C1`:↵ ↵ ```↵ I↵ |↵ C1↵ ```↵ ↵ The idea is now consideredtrue again.*problematic* for as long as `C1` is not addressed. How do you address it? You can *revise* `I` so that `C1` doesn’t apply anymore, which restores the previous state with just the standalone `I`. Veritulamarks ideas accordingly, automatically. Sinceoffers beautiful diffing and *version control for ideas*. Alternatively, you can *counter-criticize* `C1`, thereby neutralizing it:↵ ↵ ```↵ I↵ |↵ C1↵ |↵ C2↵ ```↵ ↵ Now, `I` is considered unproblematic again, since `C1` is problematic and thus can’t be a decisive criticism anymore.↵ ↵ Since thereare many ideas,can be manypotentialcriticisms (which are also justideas),ideas) and deeply nested counter-criticisms, the result is a tree structure.BecauseFor example, it might look like this:↵ ↵ ```↵ I↵ / | \↵ C11 C12 C13↵ / \ \↵ C21 C22 C23↵ / \↵ C31 C32↵ ```↵ ↵ In this tree, `I` is considered problematic. Although `C11` has been neutralized by `C21` and `C22`, `C12` still needs to be addressed. In addition, `C23` *would* have neutralized `C13`, but `C31` and `C32` make `C23` problematic again, so `C13` makes `I` problematic as well.↵ ↵ But you don’t need to keep track of these relationships manually. Veritula marks ideas accordingly, automatically.↵ ↵ Because decision-making is a special case of, or follows the same logic as, truth-seeking,this treesuch trees can also be used asadecisiontree.↵ ↵ Alltrees.↵ ↵ All ideas, including criticisms, should be formulated as concisely as possible.3 unchanged lines collapsedAgain, criticisms are also just ideas, so the same is true for criticisms. Submitting each criticism separately has the benefit ofcausingrequiring the proponent of an idea to address each criticism individually, not in bulk. If he fails to address even a single criticism, the idea remains problematic and should beconsidered false.↵ ↵ Therejected.↵ ↵ The more you discuss a given topic, the deeper and wider the tree grows. Some criticisms do apply to multiple ideas in the tree, but that needs to be made explicit. Ideas that are neither criticisms nor top-level conjectures – eg follow-up questions or neutral comments – are considered *ancillaryideas*.↵ ↵ Oneideas*. Unlike criticisms, they do not invert their respective parent’s truth status. They are neutral.↵ ↵ One of the main benefits of Veritula is that thestatetruth status of any idea in a discussion can be seen at a glance. If you are new to a much-discussed topic, the rational course of action is to adopt the displayed truth status of the ideasinvolved.↵ ↵ **Veritulainvolved: if they are marked problematic, reject them; if they are not, adopt them.↵ ↵ **Veritula acts as a *dictionary for ideas*.**3 unchanged lines collapsedVeritula solves this problem: it makes discussion trees explicit so you don’t have to remember each idea and its relation to other ideas. Veritula therefore also enables you to hold irrational people accountable: if an idea has outstanding criticisms, the rational approach is to either abandon it or to save it by addressingthem. To address a criticism, you either criticize *it* or revise the criticized idea so that the criticism doesn’t apply anymore.↵ ↵ Manythem.↵ ↵ Many people don’t like to concede an argument. But with Veritula, no concessions are necessary. The site just shows you who’s right. **Using Veritula, we may discover a bit of truth.**
Replace non-breaking spaces with regular ones
*Veritula* (Latin*Veritula* (Latin for ‘a bit of truth’) provides an objective, partly automated way to tentatively determine whether a given idea is true or false. It follows Karl Popper’s epistemology, which says that ideas are assumed true until refuted. This approach leaves us free to make *bold conjectures* and use the full arsenal at our disposal to *criticize* these conjectures to *correct errors* and *seek truth*. It’s a creativeand critical approach.↵ ↵ **Veritulaand critical approach.↵ ↵ **Veritula is a programmatic implementation of Popper’s epistemology.**24 unchanged lines collapsed
Veritula (Latin for ‘a bit of truth’) provides an objective, partly automated way to tentatively determine whether a given idea is true or false.
It follows Karl Popper’s epistemology, which says that ideas are assumed true until refuted. This approach leaves us free to make bold conjectures and use the full arsenal at our disposal to criticize these conjectures to correct errors and seek truth. It’s a creative and critical approach.
Veritula is a programmatic implementation of Popper’s epistemology.
If a criticism of an idea is criticized in turn, the criticism is neutralized and the original idea considered true again. Veritula marks ideas accordingly, automatically. Since there are many ideas, many potential criticisms (which are also just ideas), and deeply nested counter-criticisms, the result is a tree structure. Because decision-making is a special case of, or follows the same logic as, truth-seeking, this tree can also be used as a decision tree.
All ideas, including criticisms, should be formulated as concisely as possible.
Separate ideas should be submitted separately, even if they’re related. Otherwise, you run the risk of receiving ‘bulk’ criticisms, where a single criticism seems to apply to more content than it actually does.
Again, criticisms are also just ideas, so the same is true for criticisms. Submitting each criticism separately has the benefit of causing the proponent of an idea to address each criticism individually, not in bulk. If he fails to address even a single criticism, the idea remains problematic and should be considered false.
The more you discuss a given topic, the deeper and wider the tree grows. Some criticisms do apply to multiple ideas in the tree, but that needs to be made explicit.
Ideas that are neither criticisms nor top-level conjectures – eg follow-up questions or neutral comments – are considered ancillary ideas.
One of the main benefits of Veritula is that the state of a discussion can be seen at a glance. If you are new to a much-discussed topic, the rational course of action is to adopt the displayed truth status of the ideas involved.
Veritula acts as a dictionary for ideas.
One of the problems of our age is that the same discussions are had over and over again, sometimes by the same people. Part of the reason is widespread irrationality, expressed in the unwillingness to change one’s mind; another is that it’s simply difficult to remember or know what’s true and what isn’t. Discussion trees can get complex, so people shouldn’t blindly trust their judgment of whether some idea is true or problematic, whether nested criticisms have been neutralized or not. Going off of memory is too error prone.
Veritula solves this problem: it makes discussion trees explicit so you don’t have to remember each idea and its relation to other ideas. Veritula therefore also enables you to hold irrational people accountable: if an idea has outstanding criticisms, the rational approach is to either abandon it or to save it by addressing them. To address a criticism, you either criticize it or revise the criticized idea so that the criticism doesn’t apply anymore.
Many people don’t like to concede an argument. But with Veritula, no concessions are necessary. The site just shows you who’s right.
Using Veritula, we may discover a bit of truth.
This is the kind of thing that’s messed up and should be prevented: https://x.com/CatchUpFeed/status/1819079527366382071
There are financial incentives to do abortions as late as possible.
#355 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoIn activity feed, behind timestamp (‘… hours ago’), link to corresponding discussion.
Done as of e3f2c5b.