I dont see how any of your post address the points I raised. I am not suggesting that dualism is correct. As for your point about non human studies of consciousness, they are even more limited by the hard problem because they cannot report whether they are conscious. But I dont think you really care about this debate, since you never actually address the issues, but instead go off an massive irrelevant distractions.
“Something important to note is that if by “why” you are speaking philosophically, I’m not incredibly interested”
I think in general many science fanboys understand very little of philosophy, and it really comes through with your posts. The hard problem is not addressed in any of your posts. You makes these sweeping generalisations pointing to studies, yet none of them can show what you claim if your argument is correct. You would have to show not that a ganglion CANT be conscious. You are discussing research about HOW we think the brains of mammals are conscious. But showing that has nothing whatsoever about to do with how radically different nervous systems might be conscious. Its a simple logical point, but again and again you ignore it, and instead you makes these huge statements that I don’t think you appreciate just how ridiculous they are. Its like you have been reading too many IFLScience articles or something.