“Again, I don’t think you read my comment. You went from saying I wasn’t talking about anything “non human” to saying I’m not talking about anything that isn’t a “mammal”. Several of my citations discuss birds, reptiles, fish, insects, etc. Many of my citations and thousands more that I haven’t listed delve into, again, the entire animal kingdom. I have many more citations delving into the evolution of consciousness and even on the scientific determination of consciousness in invertebrates (and why one of the biggest challenges in determining whether they are conscious is identifying precise neuroanatomical and neurophysiological properties that might suggest possible conscious states in said invertebrates that specifically possess relatively large, differentiated, and centralized nervous systems, like the octopus, but not like its bivalve cousins).”
How is any of that relevant? Even if they showed conscious states were were the result of some physical property in ANY particular system it still doesnt show that particalar physical property is nessessary for consciousness in ALL systems. Its a simple matter of logic. Not an appeal to ignorance. I am not claiming we know bivalves are sentient. I am merely pointing out the limitations of the research, highlighting the ignorance behind your statements. We simply have not solved the hard problem of consciousness, so pretending like we had with pseudoscientific hand waving is just intellectually dishonest. I dont understand why you are doing it.