I do see where you’re trying to come from in terms of focusing on effectiveness — especially the idea that acting without understanding consciousness might lead to wasted effort. That makes sense from a resource-allocation standpoint.
One thing that stands out in how this is framed is the separation between humans and animals. Usually, we, humans, take an approach of talking about animals from an outside perspective, which works in most cases: us, the humans, and them, the animals. But if we want to bring biology into this, specifically the biology of consciousness, it would be scientifically incorrect to apply that separation because biologically we are animals too.
Framing the question as “do animals have consciousness?” as if they’re a completely different category overlooks the fact that consciousness likely exists on a continuum. Humans didn’t just suddenly become conscious — it likely developed gradually across species. So instead of treating animal consciousness as an all-or-nothing question, it may make more sense to think in terms of degrees and types of experience, with humans being part of that same spectrum.
When it comes to the nature of consciousness, I have fairly specific opinions. I don’t think consciousness is a continuum. I think it’s like an input or output channel. Either it’s connected or not. I think either something has consciousness or it doesn’t. It seems like my perspective on consciousness is one of the major things that separates my perspective on animal welfare from other people’s.
I can appreciate that humans are animals, but I think if an animal doesn’t have consciousness, we don’t need to worry about its welfare because there’s nobody home. Nothing is actually experiencing things from the perspective of that animal. So I think the major question is if they have consciousness or not, and which species.
I do see where you’re trying to come from in terms of focusing on effectiveness — especially the idea that acting without understanding consciousness might lead to wasted effort. That makes sense from a resource-allocation standpoint.
One thing that stands out in how this is framed is the separation between humans and animals. Usually, we, humans, take an approach of talking about animals from an outside perspective, which works in most cases: us, the humans, and them, the animals. But if we want to bring biology into this, specifically the biology of consciousness, it would be scientifically incorrect to apply that separation because biologically we are animals too.
Framing the question as “do animals have consciousness?” as if they’re a completely different category overlooks the fact that consciousness likely exists on a continuum. Humans didn’t just suddenly become conscious — it likely developed gradually across species. So instead of treating animal consciousness as an all-or-nothing question, it may make more sense to think in terms of degrees and types of experience, with humans being part of that same spectrum.
When it comes to the nature of consciousness, I have fairly specific opinions. I don’t think consciousness is a continuum. I think it’s like an input or output channel. Either it’s connected or not. I think either something has consciousness or it doesn’t. It seems like my perspective on consciousness is one of the major things that separates my perspective on animal welfare from other people’s.
I can appreciate that humans are animals, but I think if an animal doesn’t have consciousness, we don’t need to worry about its welfare because there’s nobody home. Nothing is actually experiencing things from the perspective of that animal. So I think the major question is if they have consciousness or not, and which species.