Philosophical thought on consciousness revolves around many unspoken axioms. One unexamined belief that is common in our society is that of speciesism. Speciesism has many definitions. In ethics, it refers to the view that only humans should be morally considered. However, ethical speciesism is derived from a set of axioms that inform more than just morality and creep into other discussions, such as consciousness. Speciesism in the context of consciousness will be defined as the belief that humans are the only conscious species, sometimes with certain exceptions for more intelligent animals. In clearer terms, it is the implicit belief that consciousness is defined around humanity, with less human-like creatures being less conscious or not conscious at all. In this article, I will break down why people are speciesist, how speciesism affects views on consciousness, and how we can reframe these views without speciesism.
A fundamental problem in the study of consciousness is that consciousness is not an observable or quantifiable property (at least, for now). We can’t prove other humans are conscious, let alone other animals. The only thing we can know is that we ourselves are conscious, and even then people dispute this. The most common rebuke to solipsism, or the belief that one is the only conscious entity, is that since other humans act similarly and are made of the same material as us, other humans must be conscious. While this logic is a neat way of dissuading solipsism, it leaves a lot of room to be desired. For one, it implies entities that don’t act human, and entities that function differently from humans cannot be conscious or are less conscious. This implies that peak consciousness is in humans, and all beings can only have less or none. This claim may not be true, as we don’t know the conscious status of other beings. In addition, it insinuates that consciousness must appear human-like, which leaves out the possibility of consciousness in other beings or systems such as machines, aliens, or plants unless they act sufficiently human or are structured similarly.
Furthermore, there are other factors that lead many humans to disbelieve the consciousness of non-human entities. Western faiths assert the uniqueness of humans as compared to other animals. The Bible declares humans to be separate from other animals due to being made in the image of God, and due to having eaten the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Many interpret this to mean humans are above other animals, and that we are endowed with special abilities from the fruit and due to being in the image of God. Many people derive their beliefs from faith, and even if they don’t they are still affected by people who do.
Additionally, humans appear far superior to many animals in metrics that matter to us. We can build impressive structures, foster complex societies, ponder esoteric philosophies, and create brilliant art. As the only “civilized” species, we can feel a sense of separation between us and the “beasts.” However, the “matter to us” should not be understated. Humans excel at our own priorities, but we are not the best at other tasks that are not as important for humans to function. Within the realm of intelligence, there are even certain metrics where we aren’t supreme. Chimpanzees and humans competed in an abstract hide-and-seek game that involved predicting the next move of the opponent. Chimpanzees outperformed humans due to their excellent short-term memories, pattern recognition, and rapid visual assessment. Additionally, young chimpanzees beat adult humans in memory games that involved memorizing numbers at locations in order. While human intelligence is not something to scoff at, there are intelligence tests where non-human species beat us. Who’s to say we are the best at consciousness then? Additionally, civilization and its associated technology and achievements are a shaky way of distinguishing consciousness. For the hundreds of thousands of years before we created civilization, were we not conscious? While one may argue that the potential to create civilization is the separating factor, we can’t rule out animals that are unable to create civilization due to issues such as not having features such as hands with opposable thumbs or just that they haven’t gotten around to it. Regardless, we have no way of saying that this is a necessary condition for consciousness.
We are also leaving out other beings, such as plants and fungi. Mycelium networks can be several orders more complex than a human brain. More connections exist in a 1,000-acre mycelial mass than in our brains, and the largest one is 2,200 acres. This mycelium network could be far more intelligent than humans, but it would be amazing at solving mushroom problems and crummy at solving human problems. Our bias towards entities that function similarly to us and are composed of the same matter as us is shown in full force here. A fungal network is as different to a human as can be, and it consists of different materials (something that might not be as true in other animals).
So how can we reframe our discussions in a non-speciesist way? Surprisingly, we can do so without changing much of the previously stated arguments, and making them potentially more accurate. We can view acting human and having the composition of a human as sufficient criteria for consciousness, rather than necessary. This is more logically sound, as it doesn’t make an unprovable claim about non-human entities. While the claim is now less strong, it opens the door for a lot more discussions.
Truthfully, since consciousness is not observable and measurable, our discussions are going to be no more than mere speculation. Philosophers will look back at us the same way we look back at the Greeks for arguing between if the world was made of fire or water. The best thing we have at this point is our subjective experience and the laws of logic, so we better make sure the laws of logic aren’t being misused. There doesn’t seem to be a good reason why non-human entities aren’t conscious. Furthermore, with our dataset of 1, we can’t make many claims about the necessary conditions for consciousness. In conclusion, defining consciousness in relation to humans should be avoided due to a lack of a logical basis and reasonable doubt.
