I think part of the problem is we are using a term, consciousness, that we identify primarily with human beings, and are applying it to non-human subjects.
Agree. Humans tend to anthropomorphize and project which tends to make the word "consciousness" as much a reflection of the person using the word as the organism or entity being labeled. Also "consciousness" carries historic and Pop-Psychology baggage which quickly turns the conversation into a 'unhelpful' direction and area.
One can test for Awareness and, to some extent, for Self-Reference making them, in my view, more precise thus better.
Animals have a very limited ability to plan, recollect, and abstract, so we tend not to think of them as conscious.
Many Republicans also have a very limited ability to plan, recollect, and abstract, so it's not entirely clear which species they belong to.
The Sapiens part of Homo Sapiens may be unrealistically optimistic in their case.
After a while that gets to be a bit of a bore.
Or at least so argue modern ethologists, such as Frans de Waal. By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
"Quintessentially Human" stuff is dwindling all the time. Tools, for example, are used/done by spiders, sea otters, chimpanzees, octopi, and other species with varying degrees of cognitive ability, adaption of the tool, adaption to the tool, etc. etc. The one thing Humans can do that other animals don't, to the same degree, is our complex social groupings used to allow us to exist in a diverse range of ecological niches.
