Different version of the same story discussed earlier:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40092985

(118 points/13 hours ago/151 comments)

Before this goes off the rails:

> The declaration focuses on the most basic kind of consciousness, known as phenomenal consciousness. Roughly put, if a creature has phenomenal consciousness, then it is “like something” to be that creature.

In other words, a) there is a clear definition of consciousness (as subjective experience, however minimal), b) the claim of subjective experience is backed up by evidence that the animals in question feel pain, play, and exhibit "intentional behaviours" (do things which look like they planned it, rather than just 'reacting to their environment').

Obviously all of the above are debatable (is that really what consciousness is? Do cuttlefish actually feel pain? Is feeling pain a measure of consciousness?) but there's no point claiming that they don't have a definition of consciousness or that they don't have a scientific basis for their claims, because they have both.

Of course all animals are conscious to a degree. Otherwise you would have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere which would contradict the gradual nature of evolution.

isn't the arbitrary line the definition of consciousness? "definition" comes from the latin word for border

Then there would be inevitably a conscious individual in evolutionary history whose parent is not conscious.

yes, or more than one. but doesn't that say more about the metric than about what is measured?

It seems to me we’ve had a long history of bias to human specialness (uniqueness, not merely superiority) that has blinded us to consciousness elsewhere.

Only 50 years ago the thought of apes being conscious was considered largely naive, yet alone dogs, contrary to the experience of most owners with a close relationship with their canine companions. Come 2013 and a group of scientists much like in the attached make the argument that dogs, and other animals, share traits of consciousness (https://gizmodo.com/brain-scans-show-that-dogs-are-as-consci...).

The needle seems to have moved continually since in the direction of “human consciousness is likely to sit on a continuum of consciousness with other life”.

Given this I’m inclined to take this argument at face value. As to what that means and what we should take as moral guidance from the view is a broader question (I feel it sits a bit closer to the thinking of the recently passed Daniel Dennett, or David Chalmers).

But it seems evident that whatever we take to be associated with consciousness is shared across other forms of life. Even plants seem to react to anaesthetics, and demonstrate behaviour consistent with emotional experience. If you spend time with life you tend to observe similar things across all forms.

Sure you can reduce it to pure stimuli reactions, but you can also reduce all humans to philosophical zombies with the same arguments. I’d argue the trend of evidence is suggestive of broad consciousness.

In this spirit, I’m interested if we’ll see this property extend beyond life to other systems, and not merely AI - if we reasonably argue that we have consciousness, but “we” are a system composed of cells and bacteria, that is we are effectively a macro system composed of more micro systems within us, why doesn’t a city or a planet or a solar system have some element of consciousness? Is the energy we feel at a sporting match an emotional, and conscious, expression of the communal human group present at the game? And if not, why not?

> While the declaration has implications for the treatment of animals, and especially for the prevention of animal suffering

I don't think it does because you can't derive ought from is. We could know exactly what consciousness is but it says absolutely nothing about whether or not we should be respecting it. Applying the Golden Rule (I don't like pain, therefore inflicting pain is bad) is outside the realm of science and requires another framework in order to justify it.

This seems a bit wild. I don't disagree (and the notion of bumblebees playing sports is hilarious). It makes me ponder what it means to be human.

I honestly cannot fathom how anyone could think that dogs, snakes, bumblebees, sheep, goldfish, or tits don't have consciousness or feelings.

I agree completely. Anyone who has had multiple pets should be able to tell you about their individual personalities, likes and dislikes, behavioral quirks, etc. and I feel like that has to be an aspect of consciousness.

I like the mental model where all beings are like a receptor for consciousness/God and the only difference is in the quantity of consciousness you receive. Enlightened beings being the most in tune to it by following the way/dharma

Waiting to see how people on HN interpret this.