"It's better to assume everything has a consciousness until you can prove it doesn't" This is basically a variation on Pascal's wager and is the logic anyone w

"It's better to assume everything has a consciousness until you can prove it doesn't" This is basically a variation on Pascal's wager and is the logic anyone who can't prove what they are saying insists on. The snowclone is roughly "We should believe X until we can prove Y because of horrible thing we don't want Z" Militant vegetarians claim it for animal consciousness. Abortion protestors claim it for human consciousness. Theists claim it about God. Atheists claim it about the invisible pink unicorn. etc. To me its a position to be taken that leads to tautologies. I don't personally think it's a very good epistemological method. Should you have to ask permission to turn off/throw out your computer because we have to assume it has consciousness until someone proves it doesn't?