...

"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." [0]

We've found evidence in some animal or another for pretty much everything we've ever thought was unique about human cognitive abilities. So far, the only unique thing about humans is how broad and powerful our cognition is.

[0] http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious....

For instance, prairie dogs are shown to have a descriptive language: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/prairie-dogs-language-deco...

I highly recommend reading that one because it's funny and fascinating.

Expt:

Also remarkable was the amount of information crammed into a single chirp lasting a 10th of a second.

"In one 10th of a second, they say 'Tall thin human wearing blue shirt walking slowly across the colony.'"

--

Many Helens—err....—scientists agree: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5937356/prominent-scientists-sign-de...

And also demonstrably have a sense of morality: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/19/health/chimpanzee-fairness...

A skeptic might say that such behavior is simply part of any social animal's instinct, for various reasons, to which I ask: other than being able to rationalize our behavior, what makes human demonstrations of empathy different?

Chimps don’t have a complex set of morals about which they discuss and evolve with time. I didn’t say we know for sure what is good or what is not. But we can abstract the concepts and evolve our morals. Chimps will never get to debate about gay marriage or other “chimp” rights.

We can't speak to the depths of such a debate, because we can't participate in the debate. It's an (inter-)subjective matter for the animals involved; all we can do as external observes is be objective. But this then leads us into a categorical error: because we can describe a behaviour using objective language, we therefore decide that it in fact contains no subjectivity; eg., is not truly conscious.

We used to mis-apply this logic to so-called "inferior" human cultures, denying their humanity because we couldn't get inside their minds. This was wrong, and led to great evil. Until recently, we've applied the same thinking to animals -- but it's just as wrong. There are a shrinking number of Descartian holdouts, and I guess you're one of them. But all evidence and logic is against you.

Additionally, if these things can't be objectively measured, why are you so sure they are true?

Were earlier human ancestors able to " abstract the concepts and evolve our morals"?

Humans don't have such a capacity. The notions of 'good' and 'evil' have historically been in flux and went through many huge changes. Modern humans consider the typical behaviors of past humans as 'evil'.

Vikings - rape after conquering is good. People today: that's evil.

India until 2 generations ago - arranged marriage is good. Today that's evil.

Homosexuality - has oscillated many times between good and evil. In fact, different geographic regions will still have polar opposite views on this today.

Suggest you do some homework. Something like 80%-90% of marriages in India are still arranged. And most people are pretty happy with this situation, or at least no more miserable than "Love marriages" -- which remain highly controversial -- would make them.

Today, arranged marriage means that the woman's parents will present her with prospective marriage partners but leave the decision making to her, including veto or asking the parents to 'arrange' for a man that the woman fancies - kind of like Tinder but the matching algorithm is parents. That version of arranged marriage is straight up better than the (serious) dating scene in westernized countries.

The original version is definitely considered evil by today's morals.

Is there any other animal that does this?

Uh huh.

In the meantime I'll stick with the assumption that there is still some sort of difference.

Meanwhile, I found a great termite city where termites have put aside their differences and work towards common goals together. Also coral. Their city is a thousand kilometres long.

Whatever one makes of the mental capacity of these individual eusocial animals (they're not too bright; you can lure them into termite windmills), collectively they substantially alter their local environment to their benefit.

There are whole valleys full of mounds rising a couple of metres above ground level in places where they are endemic:

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/79/d5/55/...

https://www.experiencethewild.com.au/Images/CathMound-300-PM...

and here's a a whole mess of such mounds in a field:

https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/87121/530935/f/5448597-...

That's a lot of biomass with a lot of total neurons, and even though aren't as tightly coupled as the ones in our skulls, they still manage to coordinate a lot of constructive activity. I think it's reasonable to wonder if culture and aesthetics emerge as termite numbers grow large.

Don't be so disingenuous with these ideas of abstract equivalence. Yes humans are arrogant sods but there is some sort of reason or reasons (that are likely not to be purely environmental) that have resulted in this outcome where we're having a conversion via electricity across the planet instead spending most our lives trying to roll a breadcrumb around never having a chance to know one another.

Something about this gig is different isn't it? Are you genuinely asserting that if we could take the brain of a (insert whatever animal you're considering) and put it in a human shell you wouldn't be able to tell the difference? That's extremely bold.

He never said that. So don't be surprised if people downvote you, if you use that kind of manipulative arguing.

Lets not forget that the parent comment I'm answering is the pithy:

> > We are the only mammal with consciousness > Uh huh.

Our parent is an unfaithful sarcastic position so I don't see why that gets a pass yet my attempts to solidify the argument justifies this negativity.

Your opening statement

> We are the only mammal with consciousness

is rather controversial, and has been for at least a couple of thousand years. Whether it's true or not is one of the great questions humanity has ever considered. We aren't even sure whether the question is meaningful. Everyone sort of understands what it's getting at, but there is no definition of consciousness that is widely agreed upon. As comments by others have said, for almost all human behaviours once considered exclusive to humans we have found animal behaviours that look very similar.

So, my faithful commentary on your blithely confident statement that ignores the existence of any debate on this topic is: uh huh.

I NEVER SAID THAT. Look at the user names ya plonk. I was calling YOU out for just responding "uh-huh" when you could have actually broken it down for the OP. But you didn't, you wanted to have fun so you did but with the wrong fucking person. Dick.