Dirk Meulenbelt
Member since August 2024
Badges
Activity
#710 · Dennis Hackethal, 25 days agoIn the coming period, expect us to pick up on many of the talks’ subject matter.
Interesting. I recall this felt 'off'. I keep learning grammar details after 20 years of knowing English.
#714 · Dennis Hackethal, 25 days agoWe will update you on news, events, and do longer form write-ups […]
‘longer-form’
[…] on the projects discussed in the talks, […]
You mentioned the talks in the previous sentence. Remove “discussed in the talks” and instead say ‘discussed projects’ or ‘projects that were discussed’.
[…] as we now have many more news sources we didn’t yet know about.
Don’t explain yourself to your readers. Remove this part.
agreed
There are a bunch of things that start with Zu, such as ZuBerlin, ZuThailand, etc. I suppose that too could've been explained clearer
#708 · Dennis Hackethal, 25 days agoThe Honduran Supreme Court still needs to publish an explanatory addendum on the passed law to explain how (existing) ZEDEs will be dealt with after this ruling.
Passive voice hides accountability. Who will deal with ZEDEs? Use active voice accordingly.
Agreed
#707 · Dennis Hackethal, 25 days agoProspects for Próspera and other ZEDEs look dire and in a recent post […]
The alliteration threw me off a bit here. And if they’re dire they’re not really prospects. ‘Outlook’ might work better here.
Agreed
#706 · Dennis Hackethal, 25 days agolighter taxes and regulations
‘lower taxes and lighter regulations’ (I don’t think taxes can be ‘light’)
I suppose not
#712 · Dennis Hackethal, 25 days agoNot a lawyer but reproducing the entire letter from Próspera ZEDE is presumably a violation of their copyright.
I didn't know that. I figured linking to the tweet that posted it would be fine.
#700 · Dennis Hackethal, 25 days agoI now see that the newsletter links to an explanation further down:
ZEDEs are SEZs in Honduras.
But that’s too late. May have already lost readers at that point.
How could I explain a term in the headline?
As I write in the first link, the videos “mostly show bugs and nonsensical behavior, things that wouldn’t happen ifanimals *were* sentient.”animals *were* sentient.”↵ ↵ P.S. Dirk was here
#411 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoI also don't mind the bulk criticism.
Even if the person submitting a post doesn’t mind bulk criticism, others still have a harder time discerning which ideas in the post are true/salvageable and which should be discarded. Meaning error correction is harder.
It helps when critics quote the part they’re criticizing, like I’m doing above, but the responsibility still lies with the original poster.
Criticism accepted
#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.
#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.
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