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