Is consciousness limited to the Homo sapiens species. Evidently it is not: ”Birds appear to offer, in their behavior, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy a striking case of parallel evolution of consciousness. Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots. Mammalian and avian emotional networks and cognitive micro circuitries appear to be far more homologous than previously thought. Moreover, certain species of birds have been found to exhibit neural sleep patterns similar to those of mammals, including REM sleep and, as was demonstrated in zebra finches, neurophysiological patterns, previously thought to require a mammalian neocortex. Magpies in particular have been shown to exhibit striking similarities to humans, great apes, dolphins, and elephants in studies of mirror self-recognition. We declare the following: “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing effective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.” From the Cambridge Declaration of consciousness. [fcmconference.org]
Which is why I'm a (sharply draws in breath) Agnostic Neo-Deist Pantheist! Maybe we're all conscious in the same way, are interconnected, and the sum total of energy and matter (times the speed of light squared) is 'god!'
Then again, maybe not...just a thought.
Elephants are a tremendous example of this. Not only are they extremely intelligent and have fabulous memory capabilities, they also mourn their dead and they've been known to show empathy to both humans and other animals. This article supplements your post quite nicely, and references the same definition of consciousness.
Thanks, as a long time reader of the National Geographic I know I have read that article. Just recently, the Smithsonian magazine published a similar article on Elephants. We really do need to question our use and often abuse of animals.
I lean toward thinking that nearly every creature possessed of any means for sensory input is possessed of some consciousness by virtue of the cognitive capacity required to process that input. I assume that as cognitive capacity increases some level of consciousness arises with it so that it makes sense to think of what it 'feels like'to be a bat or a dolphin or a crow, that is, to imagine what the subjective experience of such a creature might be like.
The whole venture of looking for capacities which set humans apart from the other animals should disappear once we disengage from religious creation myths. Yet the desire to see ourselves as set apart and above all other kinds does seem to persist and in my experience plenty of atheists will think it is fine to co-opt the entire biosphere as a machine to feed ever more human beings. At some point we need to stop asking "what can we do" and start asking "what would it be good to do"? But there again many of my fellow atheists will not feel that question has an answer as they assume good and evil are arbitrary social constructs.
There are also plenty of atheists that see consciousness in non-human species is a reason not to make them a food source. We have plenty of options so why go after sentient and conscious beings.
@JackPedigo well feeling as I do that consciousness is pretty well distributed across the animal kingdom I've made my peace with eating some of them. I intend my 'meat' to go back into the biome when I'm through with it. No cement box of ashes or coffin for me.
But I agree there are plenty of atheists who are considerate and thoughtful, just not too many who will agree that some courses of action are good while others are not.
@MarkWD Why eat animals if the meat industry is responsible for far more greenhouses gasses than the auto industry? Or is contributing to the destruction of the planet morally neutral?
In fact, are you saying atheists think ALL actions are morally neutral?
I always wondered why they cared about their actions at all, since there's no 'reward-punishment' consequences.
As an agnostic I've always wondered about that.
@MarkWD The big problem is not becoming 'meat' but the often tortuous road they often take to get there.
@JackPedigo yeah raising livestock is very tough on the environmental. If we just weren’t so numerous meat would be fine.
@MarkWD It's the numbers that change everything.