That's right, and the previous poster recognizes that: > I also don't know how we can advance in neuroscience without taking some risks I replied, because poi

That's right, and the previous poster recognizes that: > I also don't know how we can advance in neuroscience without taking some risks I replied, because pointing out that we don't have a definition of something is unproductive in both ways: "we don't know what consciousness is? so let's drop precautions" is just as bad as "we don't know what consciousness is? so let's stop in place". It's quite understandable to me to feel that experimentation in this area are disturbing to someone who doesn't know what model of consciousness was used to ensure that nothing immoral is being done. The answers provided in the article don't really address that. I also don't agree that consciousness is a complete mystery. We can infer criteria based on various measures of similarity, although the one criterion given in the article: "brain-wide activity that would indicate the organs could be conscious" doesn't offer any explanation as to where the criterion comes from. I take this as a failure to explain and justify that the precautions taken to eliminate the risk were enough.