I can anesthetize large parts of my body, losing all responsiveness, yet remain conscious. Moreover, if I had no head (and presumably no consciousness), I woul

I can anesthetize large parts of my body, losing all responsiveness, yet remain conscious. Moreover, if I had no head (and presumably no consciousness), I would still respond to stimuli via the spinal cord, and could still be anesthetized. That plants become unresponsive when anesthetized in no way imples that they have some consciousness that they are losing. Why does the article make this bizarre logical leap.