Why is that “might” still a question for some who have given it a proper thought? The fact that simpler animals don’t have processing power to logically analyz

Why is that “might” still a question for some who have given it a proper thought? The fact that simpler animals don’t have processing power to logically analyze their situation doesn’t make them feel less, even if the whole “feel” mechanism is different. In humans we tend to count specific states as bad or normal/good. But these aren’t inherently bad. Non-normal states are just unusual (for first few months). When you burn your finger, you feel the pain signal, experience a fixed set of builtin reactions, realize a prospect of being hurt for a week, and feel guilt for being an idiot, which makes you “learn”. But there’s nothing metaphysically “bad” with all that. It’s a complex of things which would function differently in different combinations. Bad is purely social here. Most animals express similar abilities, they just don’t have a good analyzing apparatus for being depressed about what a failure of their species they are. Everything else is there, simply from the fact that they react. And we can clearly see that a hurt limb still hurts after an hour, so it’s not even instant. They aren’t crying only because there’s no point, most animals are not social and crying attracts more trouble. Unless by “sentience” they mean something metaphysical (p-zombie like), they all are fucken obviously sentient, just less and less smarter, up to the point when only reactions remain. The “feel”, “observer”, “me” component (gradient?) is still mysterious, but that’s a completely different problem.