If we're going to agree on anything, I just wish consciousness discussions could agree on some phenomenological referent(s) for the term "consciousness". The word is used in a way that is little more than a sed-replace for elan vital, regaling all discourse to little more than a volley of solipsistic value proclamations IMHO.
Bigfoot is what you see in this photo here [0]. A useful phenomenological description doesn't presume and use the thing it attempts to describe.
A good definition would look like the Mirror Self-Recognition Test (MSRT), or even simple verbal affirmations of personal consciousness, or some MRI features, etc. But these all have glaring limitations.
MRST is unusable with blind patients, it only tests a specific kind of awareness, and it turns out that toddlers fail the test.
Verbal affirmations limit coverage to socially functional, speaking humans, so severe autistics fail, and duct tape over the mouth (or aphasia etc.) presumably impairs consciousness as well.
MRI brain features seem to always disappoint with obvious flaws like above or have some crazy exceptions of some living, healthy patients who are missing parts of their brain.
Until we can talk about consciousness without saying "consciousness" or referring to it indirectly, then we're just hallucinating IMHO.
[0]:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#/media/File%3APatter...
Anesthetics and plants: no pain, no brain, and therefore no consciousness, 2020, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7907021/
Citations https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?cites=6630013537357959749&...
Don’t jump the gun quite yet: aiming for the true target in plant neurobiology research, 2024, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00709-024-019...
>In their recent paper, Kingsland and Taiz argue that proponents of plant intelligence and plant neurobiology misuse historical sources to support their claims, suggesting a pattern of bias. They critique the reliance on subjective judgments and the systematic misuse of past literature by notable scientists. This response addresses their criticisms while adhering to Rapoport’s rules to foster constructive academic dialogue. We emphasize the importance of evidence-based research and highlight areas of agreement, including the fallacy of appealing to authority and the necessity for more robust empirical evidence. However, we also challenge their selective citation practices and argue that their narrative itself is subject to the same criticisms they levy. By examining recent works and pointing out overlooked rebuttals, we aim to clarify misconceptions and advocate for a more nuanced understanding of plant intelligence research. This dialogue underscores the need for rigorous, respectful scientific discourse to advance the field.