This article makes a few statements that are currently being demolished; >"Also a matter of conventional wisdom is the idea that human beings are on one side o

This article makes a few statements that are currently being demolished; >"Also a matter of conventional wisdom is the idea that human beings are on one side of a great divide while all animals are on the other" >"To modern science it is, if anything, the hard problem of consciousness, also commonly thought to be the province of just one species." My usual response to these kind of assertions is to direct people towards, 'The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness' - http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious... Here's the summary; >"“The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and manyother creatures,including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.” Also, I'd add something to the section on anthropomorphism. One that is touched on by the first paragraph in that section; >"Though thanks to Darwin (if not Aristotle) it should come as no surprise that animals seem to experience in some way many of the same things we do, physically and emotionally, in science the supposed imposition of “human” characteristics on non-human animals is a powerful taboo." I have long thought that from an evolutionary perspective it would be incredibly surprising if the characteristics of humans appeared in some catastophic development, such as in Julian Jaynes' book, 'The Origin of Consiousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind'. Anthropomorphisis of animals is often dismissed as being an arrogant practice that serves the person and not the animal. I would argue that a flat denial of 'human' attributes to other animals is far more so.