They are really interesting, but with some dark corners that are not clear enough to me.
For example, what would it be the source of intelligence? and how does it relate to consciousness?
Let us consider, say, ants and bears, they're obviously intelligent and reasonably well adapted to their environment (especially ants).
If they could somehow consciously realize that they exist both as an individual and as a species and would feel threatened by some common enemy, maybe humans, they could then band together as a species against the common foe. If that happened, they would cause way more trouble that they usually do.
Luckily for us, these types of thoughts never enter their minds. Even if a bear goes rogue and starts attacking people, they never reach a point where they band together and go on a crime spree or decide to take over the world. Somehow, we are able to imagine those possibilities, but they cannot and it isn't because they aren't intelligent enough. Something else is missing.
In other words, if the animals had the minds of humans, we can only imagine what the world would come to. Probably an us vs them death-match.
I'm not sure your scenario would play out. If animals always had our level then it would just be a different world. If they suddenly acquired it then I'm guessing, just as with humans, some would fight, many would ingratiate and look at how to become entwined with us. Livestock might trample the farmer but them hooves aren't going against human weapons. It's a silly thought, but I think if what you say were true then given planetary resources and environmental concerns most of the humans should be rising up against those of us exploiting then and living the good life.
Many people are preoccupied with AI these days, and most seem to consider consciousness as something that emerges from intelligence on a gradient, if they ever think about it. To me, consciousness looks more like something complementary to intelligence.
In principle, wouldn't it be possible for an artificial system to be intelligent and react to its environment without having any feeling or experience about it, just by being trained to successfully respond to its survival challenges and perhaps be able to repair or construct copies of itself? Is there a survival advantage in being able to experience life? Doesn't it just needlessly complicate things?
For some unknown reason, I find myself wondering about this from time to time.
I don't know that we can answer the question. We don't even know if that awareness is parasitical or a necessary result of the required feedback we have in our brains to make us autonomous and adaptable. I hope for it being required.
You can see this in professionals. My uncle is a remarkable lawyer. He was responsible for very important clients and has steel nerves but he is unable to do math. I know he is very intelligent in general but his emotions doesn't let him learn math. Since he was a child he associated maths with high anxiety because his father was an engineer who got angry and frustrated when he tried to push maths to his son.
But in general sense I think the abstract concept intelligence doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what you do, not your potential.
I believe that part of the process of maturing is to master your emotions. Don't repress them but acknowledge them. They are there, but you don't need to let them lead your live.
I think lots of people suffer from emotional traumas like your uncle's, me being one of them. And a lot of people are no even aware of them. Introspection is actually not that easy.
The dismissive part was the "pleasantly sounding" bit. If you want to continue the discussion in good faith, I'm game, but nothing you have written so far indicates to me that you are operating in good faith.
A lot of very deep thinkers from the ancient world have been relegated to the pile of "religion", but if you give them a shot, you might find something interesting. If you engage with practically any text written more than a thousand years ago, you'll find things that seem silly from a modern perspective, but if you grant them some leeway re: how their cultural context influenced their thought, there are some real gems.
(Edit: as a relevant example from Buddhism, check out the Diamond Sutra)
What's the harm? "Experts" can share their perspectives as well.