[pygy_]

The idea that animals are not conscious comes from religion, not science.

The only conscious entity that I’m 100% positive exists is myself. If you reject solipsism, none of the traditional criteria that tell apart humans from animals (e.g. language or ethics) hold up to scientific scrutiny as far as consciousness is concerned.

The criteria that have been scientifically vetted (based on information theory among others) also hold for animals and other living beings (genes known as transcription factors form network that are isomorphic in form and function to neuronal circuits).

[hprotagonist]

>The idea that animals are not conscious comes from religion, not science.

and even then: opinions, as they say, vary wildly.

[raducu]

What is the definition for consciousnes anyway?

Is it the feeling that you are conscious, can you really differentiate it from proprioception that most animals have.

Is it the bahavior we see in animals recognizing themselves in the mirror?

Or is it language and the ability to produce valid sounding statements about oneself?

[treljherthj]

While you are right that we can't exclude the possibility of animals being consciousness, it's well accepted that their conscious level is very low compared to ours.

[goatlover]

Is there some neuroscience backing that? Or is this an argument that consciousness is largely based on having language? Which sounds rather anthropomorphic.

[bencollier49]

It's an argument by induction. Bacteria (and chair legs) we assume must be less conscious than us. So that sets up a sliding scale with us and the higher mammals at the pinnacle.

[ses1984]

What's a conscious level?

[nkrisc]

That sounds like something a theologian moving the goal posts in light of modern findings would say.

[wildmusings]

The problem is that the term "consciousness" has too many meanings, and any debate about it seems to devolve into people talking past each other.