> Well, it's murky, but some easy thought experiments might bring clarity: * Should we raise humans on factory farms, in order to increase the amount of conscio

> Well, it's murky, but some easy thought experiments might bring clarity: * Should we raise humans on factory farms, in order to increase the amount of conscious experience? * if so, and assuming that humans pay more attention to aversive stimuli than positive/neutral stimuli, should we deliberately torture them? > Both propositions are obviously horrible. But why? The answer is similar to why the death of worms < chickens < pet dogs < people < great people. >Consciousness is a matter of connected/integrated complexity Can you prove this supposition, though? Would that make the internet conscious, for example? I would think not. I think the propositions you mentioned seem horrible because of an offshoot of our instinct to form tribes to survive better. It feels bad to torture people and other beings that help us survive, because that's integral to our survival. A lone human being has a much rougher time than a group does, and a group that trusts each other would survive better than where everyone is at each other's throats. My theory is that human beings need a religion to feel sane. If there isn't an organized one that they accept, they create one of their own. This is why these sort of "common sense" laws of morality (better to not raise animals in a factory) come into being. People need to believe in a higher set of laws than what man can provide, even if there isn't any real justification for them one way or the other.