Irresponsible to Ignore Widespread Animal Consciousness

[The Hammer]

It’s ‘irresponsible’ to ignore widespread consciousness across animal world, dozens of scientists argue

There is good reason to believe fish, amphibians, molluscs and insects are sentient, according to a new declaration signed by three dozen scientists. The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousnes…

thehill.com

"There is good reason to believe fish, amphibians, molluscs and insects are sentient, according to a new declaration signed by three dozen scientists.

The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness argues that current scientific research indicates such widespread animal consciousness is a “realistic possibility” — and that scientists and policymakers must take that into account when considering risks to those animals. "

""he added. “I don’t personally think that other animals will have a verbal inner monologue in the way that I do. But equally, there are probably forms of consciousness other animals have that we lack,” like the subjective experience of a bat navigating a dark forest using echolocation.""



So, how should policy makers and scientists take the idea that animal consciousness is widespread, into consideration? Should they take that into consideration at all?

Maybe, who cares if some animal is conscious of the world, it's still not "human consciousness"?

But is it? What exactly distinguishes human from animal consciousness?

 

[Eddi]

I think that in order for any entity to be able to respond to things and to do stuff having consciousness is essential

 

[The Hammer]

I think that in order for any entity to be able to respond to things and to do stuff having consciousness is essential

How far does that extend? Plants respond to things and do stuff for instance.

 

[Quintessence]

Literally any biological organism that can sense and respond to its environment is "conscious" or "aware." So, basically all life. And, arguably, all non-life as well considering how on earth to molecular bonds form if the the atoms involve can't sense and respond to each other in some way? But I kind of dislike the term "consciousness" in general, so... eh. Humans mostly just seem to use it as a litmus test to justify abuse and objectification, which as an animist, just is not something I do on general principle.

 

[The Hammer]

Literally any biological organism that can sense and respond to its environment is "conscious" or "aware." So, basically all life. And, arguably, all non-life as well considering how on earth to molecular bonds form if the the atoms involve can't sense and respond to each other in some way? But I kind of dislike the term "consciousness" in general, so... eh. Humans mostly just seem to use it as a litmus test to justify abuse and objectification, which as an animist, just is not something I do on general principle.

I agree.

Never thought about it at the atomic level though, that's given me something to think about.

 

[Quintessence]

I agree.

Never thought about it at the atomic level though, that's given me something to think about.

There was a piece I read years ago that made that case - wish I could remember the author. But the bedrock of the philosophy was to see all interactions as relationships as a sort. That if matter fundamentally lacks the ability to communicate with itself on all levels, the universe doesn't organize. Thus, "sentience" and "consciousness" is a fundamental property of the universe and everything in it. This is obviously a departure from the anthropocentric fashion in which these terms are typically understood in modern non-animist Western culture. As an idea it is, at best, controversial.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Maybe, who cares if some animal is conscious of the world, it's still not "human consciousness"?

"Human consciousness" is a term coined by humans to somehow make them separate and/or superior to other species.

But is it? What exactly distinguishes human from animal consciousness?

Ego.

Sure there may be variations in the consciousness experiences such as the bat echolocation mentioned in the OP, but making two categories of consciousness; "human consciousness" and "animal consciousness" seems rather sophomoric to me. After all, aren't humans animals?

If one is going to make a distinction, how about "human consciousness," "little brown bat consciousness," "raven consciousness," "holstein cow consciousness," "alligator consciousness," "cuttlefish consciousness," etc.?

 

[Debater Slayer]

It’s ‘irresponsible’ to ignore widespread consciousness across animal world, dozens of scientists argue

There is good reason to believe fish, amphibians, molluscs and insects are sentient, according to a new declaration signed by three dozen scientists. The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousnes…

thehill.com

"There is good reason to believe fish, amphibians, molluscs and insects are sentient, according to a new declaration signed by three dozen scientists.

The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness argues that current scientific research indicates such widespread animal consciousness is a “realistic possibility” — and that scientists and policymakers must take that into account when considering risks to those animals. "

""he added. “I don’t personally think that other animals will have a verbal inner monologue in the way that I do. But equally, there are probably forms of consciousness other animals have that we lack,” like the subjective experience of a bat navigating a dark forest using echolocation.""



So, how should policy makers and scientists take the idea that animal consciousness is widespread, into consideration? Should they take that into consideration at all?

Maybe, who cares if some animal is conscious of the world, it's still not "human consciousness"?

But is it? What exactly distinguishes human from animal consciousness?

I have a friend who works in medical animal research and testing who has told me about this event, which she attended. From what I understand based on what she said, the findings could inform policies that aim to protect certain species that have largely been assumed to have "less consciousness," feel "no pain," etc. Such protection may include further research efforts to reduce or eliminate the need for medical animal testing (she has been involved in such efforts), more ecological preservation efforts, and more mindfulness of the ability of those species to experience pain and be aware of the world around them.

I don't think there's some hard line distinguishing between "human consciousness" and "animal consciousness" (also bearing in mind that humans are animals too). Such terms seem to me ultimately subjective classifications.

 

[bobhikes]

It’s ‘irresponsible’ to ignore widespread consciousness across animal world, dozens of scientists argue

There is good reason to believe fish, amphibians, molluscs and insects are sentient, according to a new declaration signed by three dozen scientists. The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousnes…

thehill.com

"There is good reason to believe fish, amphibians, molluscs and insects are sentient, according to a new declaration signed by three dozen scientists.

The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness argues that current scientific research indicates such widespread animal consciousness is a “realistic possibility” — and that scientists and policymakers must take that into account when considering risks to those animals. "

""he added. “I don’t personally think that other animals will have a verbal inner monologue in the way that I do. But equally, there are probably forms of consciousness other animals have that we lack,” like the subjective experience of a bat navigating a dark forest using echolocation.""



So, how should policy makers and scientists take the idea that animal consciousness is widespread, into consideration? Should they take that into consideration at all?

Maybe, who cares if some animal is conscious of the world, it's still not "human consciousness"?

But is it? What exactly distinguishes human from animal consciousness?

All life has a form of consciousness, or else it couldn't survive.

 

[Revoltingest]

All life has a form of consciousness, or else it couldn't survive.

Aye, latest claims of revelations strike me
as nothing new. To "think" covers a vast
spectrum from the smallest to largest critters.
But it's nonetheless fascinating & useful to
discover more about how & what some think,
eg, whales, apes, Scots, cats.