I am not a specialist but from the little evidence I've read the octopus could be one of the most conscious species on the planet. Would not capture or eat.

You're right that this example throws a wrench in my genetic relatedness argument. Stepping back from that, the deeper question is: how obvious is it that a creature can suffer similar to my own suffering? If it's obvious, it's obviously a bad choice for domination and consumption in my book. Plants do not have this outward obvious ability to suffer imo.

You may want to include some kind of time factor into your suffering assessment.

Like, what if some "thing" has very complex behaviours as per your existing items, but their external signalling rate is so slow that it takes hours for them to start displaying their reactions?

(note - that's just an exaggerated thing to convey the idea)

I think the subjective time here is especially relevant. The post previous mentioned having a conversation with ChatGPT about the topic. ChatGPT probably had multiple human lifetimes of conversations during that one conversation. Would it think of humans the same way we think of trees? Too slow to have meaningful behaviour? Maybe on H100s not just yet.

Interesting angle. Hadn't thought of that, and it's probably good to be aware of. :)

An interesting question, but I hope not a 'gotcha' question. People don't need a perfect, universal philosophy any more than your code needs a perfect, universal algorithm. We almost always function fine and accomplish a lot with less.

There’s almost certainly no way that we are more genetically related to plants than cephalopods. All sequencing and morphology data support that animalia is a monophyletic kingdom (diverged from one ancestor).

The octopus has similar fight or flight responses as humans. Plants don’t have it. It’d be kind of cruel to have a non-moving living being constantly suffer pain or fear of being killed. Hence, the actual genetic similarity is less important than how they operate in the world.

> more distant genetic relatives than your salad!

This is ideological BS, not scientific facts. Many of this kind of posts are just pseudoscience in its most pure form.

An animal is obviously more related with another member of the same kingdom than with another member of a different kingdom. Why? Because taxonomy works exactly like that.

If you find a single animal with DNA more closely related with a plant that with another animal that would destroy the entire classification of life.

Molluscs can have, and do have, chloroplasts under its skin. We know about several species of molluscs that have it, but this is borrowed stuff. To a naive person could appear as one single species in a genetic analysis, but is an artifact. We know not to trust blindly in those analysis