BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260824T003733Z
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260901T110000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260901T123000
SUMMARY:"The Perceived Role Of Consciousness In Moral Status Attributions"
UID:20260824T004500Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-757c47d5c7-djdpn
TZID:Europe/London
DESCRIPTION:<p>Season 4 of the "value of consciousness" zoom series starts Tuesday. The first talk by&nbsp\;Rony Hirshhorn\, Nicool&ograve\; Negro\, and Liad Mudrik on "The Perceived Role&nbsp\;Of&nbsp\;Consciousness&nbsp\;In Moral Status Attributions"\; more info below. Everybody's welcome.&nbsp\;</p>\n<p><br> ************ <br> When: Tuesday\, Sept. 1st\, 11am in Houston/19.00 in Tel Aviv</p>\n<p>Where:&nbsp\;https://riceuniversity.zoom.us/j/95097231463?pwd=MJPessWBzOphk7kDax5u6D2NpiB6In.1</p>\n<p>Who:&nbsp\;Rony Hirshhorn\, Nicool&ograve\; Negro\, and Liad Mudrik</p>\n<p>What:&nbsp\;"The Perceived Role&nbsp\;Of&nbsp\;Consciousness&nbsp\;In Moral Status Attributions" &nbsp\;</p>\n<p><u><br></u></p>\n<p><strong>Abstract</strong>.&nbsp\;Determining which entities deserve moral consideration is crucial to policy debates about animal welfare and artificial intelligence regulation. A common assumption is that consciousness is a key criterion for moral status\, often considered to be necessary or sufficient for it. However\, it is unclear whether public attitudes share this assumption. In a large\, preregistered study (N=1493)\, we tested the perceived relationship between consciousness and moral status by triangulating direct questions\, moral dilemmas\, and attribution questions across diverse entities. Although consciousness was strongly associated with moral status\, it was neither perceived as necessary nor sufficient: participants attributed moral status without consciousness\, and denied moral status despite its presence. Moreover\, respondents clustered into distinct decision profiles\, which were predicted by their individual backgrounds. Therefore\, moral decisions did not depend solely on the properties of the target entity\, but also on those of the person making the judgment. These results have implications for how ethical and policy decisions are framed.</p>\n<p><br><br></p>\n<p><u>Schedule for the rest of the year:</u> &nbsp\;</p>\n<p>Oct. 6: Juliette Vazard\, "Daydreaming your Future"</p>\n<p>Nov. 10: Jacopo Pallagrosi\, &ldquo\;Introspective Acquaintance and Cognitive Achievement&rdquo\;</p>\n<p>Dec. 1: Marybel Menzies\, &ldquo\;Phenomenal Perfection&rdquo\;&nbsp\;</p>\n<p>Jan. 5 Andreas Mogensen\, &ldquo\;Might it not matter whether software can be sentient?"&nbsp\;</p>\n<p>Feb. 2 Julien Bugnon and Martine Nida-R&uuml\;melin\, &ldquo\;Conscious Beings as Centers&nbsp\;of&nbsp\;Value&rdquo\;</p>\n<p>Mar. 2 Tricia Magalotti\, &ldquo\;The&nbsp\;Value&nbsp\;of&nbsp\;Emotional Experience&rdquo\;</p>\n<p>Apr. 6 Luke Roelofs\, &ldquo\;Pluribus and the ethics&nbsp\;of&nbsp\;hiveminds&rdquo\;</p>\n<p>May 4 Robbie Kubala\, &ldquo\;Consciousness&nbsp\;Aesthetics without Aesthetic Properties&rdquo\;</p>
ORGANIZER;CN=Uriah Kriegel:
METHOD:PUBLISH
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR
