Considering that as sentient beings ourselves, we don't really even understand sentience, it's kinda bold to assume we've got a monopoly on it.

What was obvious to most of us as kids (and what was attempted to be beaten out of us as kids) is now being accepted by scientists. Love it.

I dunno about all that, but I used to have an African fish that would always get the zoomies when I'd come home from work. He'd spit water at me or gravel at the glass to get my attention, and loved playing hide and seek and always brushed up on my hands when I was working on his tank. He never reacted this way to visitors, just me.

It seems odd to me that this article is framing octopodes as a surprising inclusion. Aren't they generally known to be some of the most intelligent animals of all?

Wasn’t this already obvious?

This is self evident to any animal lover

So arrogant are we

I've always thought this, and thought it strange we assumed other creatures experienced lesser levels of sentience.

Ofc they are sentient.

I fail to understand why do we will push the 'no expression of the face means no intelligence or emotions bcs most of us communicate that way'.

It always turns out that whatever brain mechanics we think of as our own we later & with minimal research find in other animals as well.

Evolutionary speaking too, same brain centres (with various density and relative size - of which we dont have all that dense brains & and most parts are underdeveloped), it's absolutely unlikely we would have developed something new in a few millions of years (especially given smol & fragmented populations facing extinctions and smol gene pools - tho that could be interpreted the other way too). It's just specialisation, some (advantageous) functions grew, other were optimised to the point of non-existence.

Then again, given how intolerant are we to our own species in terms of our emotional response to slight visual differences (I mean vcompletely evolutionary, uncanny valley thing, the next village of humanoids might have been competing for the same resources, which makes different culture/colours/face shapes = danger, etc), how we choose to ignore compassion (like 'look at that idiot, ofc they have no feelings, not unlike me, the superior being') ... ofc we can't immediately recognise and understand what and how animals are feeling. It takes a lot of time, effort, & empathy (mechanical empathy, like to fully underhand their environment from their pov, and emotional empathy, how they are processing that environment).

And the bigger the difference and habitats, the harder it is (like any sea animal really). Anything non-mammal seems alien to us, no matter the smarts (eg cuttlefish, that can clearly experience psychological trauma on individual and population/cultural level).

And then there are fungi. After that plants. And whatever we choose bacteria to be (like beings, or just a literal matter of environment we live within). Etc :).

This raises some interesting questions. The premise of these scientists is that consciousness can be quantified empirically. Yet many of the tests described in this article can be passed by machines. Does that mean that the scientists who signed the declaration consider some smart devices to demonstrate consciousness? And what are the implications?

IS veganism the real solution here, or is the real solution the all-artificial, all-synthetic diet? Me personally, I'm going to down this jug of red 40, and then I think I'll get back to you

I thought this should be obvious to anyone who's interacted with an animal, ever. But sadly there are a great many people who don't agree there is a 'soul behind the tv screen' as it were with animals more primitive than things like cats and dogs. It can be easy to use to justify human cruelty.

And it's easy for you to say it's obvious and you've thought that all along. You're not the demographic they're trying to inform.

Be that as it may, wasps can still fuck right off.

Will we now treat them as well as other clearly sentient animals like pigs?

I'd be tempted to go and say "no shit," but even the most obvious things have to be proven or tested. How you define consciousness can also change a lot.

so it's time to stop masturbating with my dog in the room

not surprising, I remember watching spider move when I was a kid and thinking they were obviously intelligent. sure they creep me out but I hate killing them for no reason, same with literally any other living thing

Sometimes I confuse Sentient and Sapient in sentences but they actually don't mean the same thing at all.

In my opinion the idea of animal conscious has been fairly well supported for decades at minimum. There was a certain anti-consciousness orthodoxy in the animal behavior field that held back understanding of this topic. But I mean simple observation of animal behavior and the similar nervous structures surely leave animal consciousness the most likely explanation, even if it’s difficult to definitively prove.

A more interesting question in my mind is whether plants are conscious. This is a question that we truly have no idea how to answer.

Yeah, well I'm still not sorry I put out ant traps.

Edit: The downvoters have clearly never had an ant infestation in their kitchen. It's not a 'live and let live' situation.

No fucking shit... anyone with half a brain and a minimum of empathy already knows that.

Yes, yes, the scientific method doesn't discriminate between what is and isn't obvious, but the headline is, as usual, aimed at people with the intellectual capabilities of a 4 year old.

Anything being that has a sense of self and other has a level of conscious awareness.