3 ms·
We can't decide because we don't have a machine that objectively measures consciousness. But it's safer to err on the side of mercy than to accidentally create
by uh_uh 5y ago
We can't decide because we don't have a machine that objectively measures consciousness. But it's safer to err on the side of mercy than to accidentally create hell on Earth.
- f6v 5y ago> We can't decide because we don't have a machine that objectively measures consciousness. We can say that insects don't have the brain capacity to be conscious. I'm pretty sure we might say the same about many fish species.
- uh_uh 5y agoI'm quite certain that the current scientific understanding is that we don't know how consciousness works at all. This is exactly the kind of landscape where one might expect big surprises. Think about how useless our intuitions proved to be when it comes to other phenomena like gravity or electromagnetism. It took a while to (kind of) figure these out despite them being easier to measure than consciousness. W.r.t. fish: they act in a way you'd expect a creature to act if they felt pain. If they had vocal cords and thus the ability to scream, would you agree that they feel pain? Same applies to insects.
- EvilEy3 5y agoI wish most people be so comfortable in life that they start thinking this bs.