Problem 1: trade-offs suggest processing of stimuli which goes beyond mere reflex responses, but they have yet to be connected directly to other measures of sentience or the mechanisms implicated by different theories of consciousness... (6/11)
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Problem 2: some trade-offs are carried out by extremely simple mechanisms with no connection to sentience. In tiny nematode worms, simple interactions between just 2-3 neurons responding directly to chemical concentrations can explain certain trade-off behaviours (7/11)
Problem 3: As I previously pointed out (https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478.1749), states like pain can make some trade-offs *harder* rather than explaining them: it's easier to rationally weigh up the risks and benefits of a surgical procedure when you are not acutely experiencing the problem (8/11)
Yet we do sometimes perform trade-offs by weighing up how good and bad experiences feel to us. So a trade-off *can* be evidence for sentience. Key is distinguishing possible mechanisms, and showing this trade-off is explained by a sentience-involving mechanism (9/11)
One big message here: the role sentience plays in decision-making may be much more subtle and complex than providing a 'common currency' for evaluating different options. It likely has different effects on attention, learning, deliberation etc. over different timescales...(10/11)
By paying attention to such effects on the dynamics of decision-making, and combining with other consciousness research, future research could find ways of teasing apart mechanisms, thereby providing much stronger trade-off-based evidence for sentience in different animals (11/11)
Comments