ok, so anything with our "shared history and similar biology" is assumed to have consciousness?
How similar is "similar"? Is it just mammals, or just certain orders, or can organisms in the other branches be assumed to have consciousness too?
How similar is "similar"? Is it just mammals, or just certain orders, or can organisms in the other branches be assumed to have consciousness too?
As it stands you are just suggesting complicated, untestable theories. The point above is, that is ultimately pointless.
The simplest possible argument goes as follows: I am conscious, and I am made of matter. Everything else that is real is made of matter. There are other minds out there who also have this experience. With no further information, I must assume as the null hypothesis that everything in reality is conscious. An alternative hypothesis may be presented, but it would then need to be proven using reproducible studies and real evidence before we can assume the alternative hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis, per the consensus definition of formalized "science".
The rebuttal along epistemological lines goes as follows: you can know you are conscious, but you cannot necessarily know things that are witnessed through physical (limited, imperfect) sensory organs, so there is a wall beyond which we are forced only to postulate truths rather than conclusively prove them.
And the response to that is: if we are to progress in our analysis at all, we must postulate certain truths, and it is "best" to postulate only the least complex (in the Kolmogorov sense) assumptions given the data (Occam's Razor). "Best" is defined according to humanity's scientific principles.
Your last sentence explains the second-to-last one: all we know is we have experience, therefore all we can assume about not-us is that it also has experience, because any other explanation would unduly add more complexity to the theory of consciousness in the universe. It's just Occam's razor.
If you try reading my comments again, thoroughly, you will find the following text:
> I am conscious, and I am made of matter. Everything else that is real is made of matter. There are other minds out there who also have this experience. With no further information, I must assume as the null hypothesis that everything in reality is conscious.
That was the point I was making. You re-iterated it in an attempt at some kind of rebuttal to something I didn't say.
How similar? Good question. Assume nothing and truth will out.