4 ms·

I think this explanation goes a bit sideways - comparing emotional states and happiness, which is not directly related to consciousness. What I am surprised ab

I think this explanation goes a bit sideways - comparing emotional states and happiness, which is not directly related to consciousness. What I am surprised about is not how sentimentally lucky I am, but how unlikely it is that my consciousness (which by the theory of consciousness being everywhere) ended up in the being that we consider to be "most conscious" (human). Even if I lived a very short life full of terror and pain - I still would be just as surprised that consciousness that could have been "planted" anywhere ended up in me - a human. And so the alternative theory of "only humans have consciousness" would be more attractive.

mr-wendel 6y ago
Sideways indeed! I agree. I think as consciousness grows and expands it becomes increasingly clear that what we call "emotion" is an inseparable quality of being conscious. The more emotion is denied (or suppressed) the more obvious its underlying presence becomes, as it becomes a massive, unconscious (and dangerous) rudder. Personally, I find it astonishing that anyone could draw a line at humanity. For example, have you never bonded with a dog before? It's so blazingly clear that while there are obvious differences there are even more similarities behind how they think and feel. It's not just dogs: cows, pigs, and rats -- if you spend any time with them -- are obviously high on the spectrum. It's unfathomable that the line of consciousness is anywhere near being at humans alone. My intent isn't to be insulting, but inviting! There is much splendor in connecting with non-human life, even if it doesn't have all the same qualities as human life :).