The evidence: animals exhibit numerous behaviors that resemble our emotional responses in various ways. Anyone who has ever had a pet dog or a cat will have countless anecdotes.
The explanation with the fewest moving parts is that our brain and hormonal systems look an awful lot like the brain and hormonal systems of a cat or a dog and therefore the simplest explanation is that cats and dogs have emotions and thought patterns that resemble ours in very meaningful ways.
The actual scientific explanations that people tend to put forward (as discussed in TFA) revolve around us projecting our own thoughts and emotions onto the animals. To me that seems substantially less rational than just believing that similar neurological structures produce similar neurological results.
Are you sure that is not just mimicry of mechanisms left by evolution? Is like saying ChatGPT has conscience because it can talk or "think" like us...are we missing something here?
I am not opposing your view, just trying to understand the logic - perplexed by downvotes on a simple question...
I'm not sure about the downvotes, I couldn't even downvote you if I wanted to because you replied to me.
I'm operating on the assumption that evolution happened as Darwin described it. As another reply to you notes, darwinian evolution precludes sharp divides between species in favor of a gradual development of complexity over time. A believer in darwinian evolution should expect consciousness and emotions and other mental processes to manifest on a continuum, which means that the question of animal consciousness should be about as controversial as the question of our own consciousness (which is definitely an open topic of philosophical debate but is also impossible to solved with an experiment).
Not that I believe this, but there could be an intelligence cliff where you get to a certain level and suddenly consciousness and self awareness appear. That is a mechanism where gradual change could lead to stepped differences.
We have already enough evidence to assume that such cliff does not exist.
I can recommend the book „How language began“ by Daniel Everett, where he demonstrates convincingly that our path to language, culture and consciousness was not a single switch, but evolutionary process. Recent research of cetaceans shows that their language and culture may overlap in sophistication with our ancestors.
There could, but then you would have to explain why some permutations of matter create a new dimension of sensation which previously didn't exist, which then has the ability to reach back into the dimension of matter and exert will on it (are we opening a wormhole to an alternate reality of the soulbots or something??).
I'll reiterate that I don't believe it to be the case that animals with smaller brains are not self-aware, but wanted to counter that it HAS to be a smooth gradient of level of consciousness between simpler and more complex brains. It can be stepped.
However, if it were the case, you don't need to explain it, only observe it. For example, I think we can say from observation that there needs to be a minimal complexity. n-neurons cannot be self aware and n+1 can. I'm sure it's not just the number, but you get the point. The gradient of self-awareness need not start at the gradient of intelligence, nor need it have the same slope.
I don't believe in non-physical explanations. We don't know the mechanism though, so we do actually do need to explain why some permutations of matter, as you put it, (i.e. the permutation in brains) has this sense, and others (matter in rocks, matter in computers?) does not. Although I'd think process, rather than just arrangement.
The explanation with the fewest moving parts is that our brain and hormonal systems look an awful lot like the brain and hormonal systems of a cat or a dog and therefore the simplest explanation is that cats and dogs have emotions and thought patterns that resemble ours in very meaningful ways.
The actual scientific explanations that people tend to put forward (as discussed in TFA) revolve around us projecting our own thoughts and emotions onto the animals. To me that seems substantially less rational than just believing that similar neurological structures produce similar neurological results.