Cited by 36Philosophy and Theoretical SciencePhilosophical Ethics and TheoryEthics, Aesthetics, and Art

Sentience, Vulcans, and zombies: the value of phenomenal consciousness

Open access
Shepherd, Joshua·2024·AI & SOCIETY

Abstract

Many think that a specific aspect of phenomenal consciousness—valenced or affective experience—is essential to consciousness’s moral significance (valence sentientism). They hold that valenced experience is necessary for well-being, or moral status, or psychological intrinsic value (or all three). Some think that phenomenal consciousness generally is necessary for non-derivative moral significance (broad sentientism). Few think that consciousness is unnecessary for moral significance (non-necessitarianism). In this paper, I consider the prospects for these views. I first consider the prospects for valence sentientism in light of Vulcans, beings who are conscious but without affect or valence of any sort. I think Vulcans pressure us to accept broad sentientism. But I argue that a consideration of explanations for broad sentientism opens up possible explanations for non-necessitarianism about the moral significance of consciousness. That is, once one leans away from valence sentientism because of Vulcans, one should feel pressure to accept a view on which consciousness is not necessary for well-being, moral status, or psychological intrinsic value.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00146-023-01835-6

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Butlin P, Long R, Elmoznino E, Bengio Y, Birch J, Constant A, Deane G, Fleming SM, Frith C, Ji X, Kanai R (2023) Consciousness in artificial intelligence: insights from the science of consciousness. arXiv:2308.08708 · arXiv
  2. Fletcher G (2015) Objective list theories. In: Fletcher G (ed) The Routledge handbook of philosophy of well-being. Routledge, London, pp 164–176

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shepherd, J.
Affiliations
Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ES)
Corresponding author
Shepherd, Joshua
Venue
AI & SOCIETY
Published
2024-01-12
Volume
39
Issue
6
Pages
3005-3015
ISSN
  • 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-5655
OpenAlex
W4390824871
Cited by
36
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 28
FWCI
14.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AI & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • H2020 European Research Council (757698)
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Ethics, Aesthetics, and Art
Keywords
phenomenal consciousness, emotional experience, well-being, moral status, zombies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review