(February 19, 2020 at 11:07 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: John's actual objection seems to be that he doesn't think that the available evidence is sufficient to support a conclusion of consciousness/awareness in higher animals. It seems that he believes that sufficient evidence isn't even possible since animals can't talk (he says, leaving an opening for a tangent on animal communication, particularly sign language in apes which some apes have used to convey emotional content such as missing someone). That' s not invalid in itself, but it's just an opinion. It doesn't require rejection of the facts of cognitive science, just some of its common conclusions.
I wonder what he makes of prostitution in monkeys? And penguins?