Dang that last one is the most interesting to me. Also sorry for getting anal about the axis. I trust you knew what you were saying.

This is all presupposing that consciousness exists at all. If not, then everything’s moral value is 0. If it does, then I feel confident that steel beams don’t have consciousness.

So there is a moral hierarchy but you regard its source as only possibly existing and extremely nebulous. Given that foundation why do you stand by the validity of the hierarchy, and especially why do you say it is moral to do so?

Also I imagine that your difference in how you see the steel beam vs a brain is based on how much communication you’ve understood from each. Do you think our ability to understand something or someone is a reasonable way to build a moral framework? I think there are many pit falls to that approach personally, but I get its intuitive appeal.

I was most curious to see answers to this section.

Is consciousness different from the ability to experience? If they are different what separates them, and why is consciousness the one that gets moral weight? If they are the same then how do you count feelings? Is it measured in real time or felt time? Do psychedelics that slow time make a person more morally valuable in that moment? If it is real time, then why can you disregard felt time?

I have a few answers I can kinda infer: You likely think consciousness and the ability to experience are the same. You measure those feelings in real time so 1 year is the same for any organism.

More importantly onto the other axis: Did you mean derivative of their experiences so far? (I assume by time) That would give experience rate. Integral by time would get the total. I think you wanted to end with rate*QALYs = moral value. The big question for me is: how do you personally estimate something’s experience rate?

Given your previous hierarchy of humans near the top and neurons not making the cut, I assume you belive space has fundamental building blocks that can’t be made smaller. Therefore it is possible to compare the amount of possible interaction in each system.

Edit: oh yeah, and at the end of all that I still don’t know why brains are different from a steel beam on your moral value equation

I see how that could feel right. It doesn’t make sense to me personally though.

Is consciousness different from the ability to experience? If they are different what separates them, and why is consciousness the one that gets moral weight? If they are the same then how do you count feelings? Is it measured in real time or felt time? Do psychedelics that slow time make a person more morally valuable in that moment? If it is real time, then why can you disregard felt time?

What about single celled organisms like stentor coeruleus roeselii that can learn? Why are they below the bar for consciousness?

It seems pretty mind bending to morally rank organisms. By what metric do you estimate humans are more valuable than a random animal?

I’m pretty sure there is much more air. At least volume wise. Sphere volume goes up by radius cubed.

Vanta black face is only 2d racism.Which is a measurable amount, but incomparable to 3d racism.

I was referring to the commenter’s last sentence

That would be a really cool feature