Denial of Sentience in Animals

I really don't like arguments that go "The report was from X therefore it is biased" because they don't actually address the facts.  The human race is very biased in these issues.  To demonstrate the degree to which we are anthropocentrically biased we only have to compare our reactions to the following:  Doing medical experiments on rapists and child abusers vs. doing medical experiments on animals.  Our emotions compete with our logic and produce cognitive dissidence.  Does this mean that every human statement on the subject of animals is untrustworthy?

In what way do you think PETA are biased?  I am aware that they do a lot of research.  Do you think they deliberately selectively report and if they do do you think that what they do report is truthful?  Do you think it is a subconscious bias?  What in this article do you specifically think is inaccurate and why?  What evidence do we have that the EQ argument is an accurate means of determining sentience?

I must have really pressed one of your buttons. I just think that when it comes to the core motivator of their cause, any advocacy group will inherently be biased in one way or another (perhaps just subconsciously) in its favor in trying to convince outsiders of the rightness of their cause. Human nature. Just as are opinion pieces supporting the other side of the animal medical experimentation debate, like this. Not being an expert and not having done a lot of research I can't cite specific errors in the PETA article if there are some. I am just on principle a little suspicious of this writeup in its objectivity. Despite this, I even mildly conceded that this short essay was fairly convincing, and that it casts some doubt on the validity of the EQ arguments in studying the evolution of intelligence and brain size relationships to intelligence.

One of my favorite animals is the octopus. So intelligent, inventive, but with a, unfortunately, short life span. I was obsessed with them for awhile.

Such a beautiful but anti-social animal.

I totally believe they possess consciousness, but then I believe even plants and trees possess it too.

Everything is conscious, just not in the same way as we understand it as humans. Rocks, trees, especially trees and their natural, collective sensorial functions. Are you aware that trees are so well entangled with one another (in a forest or grove) that they can move water to the trees that need it the most?

A level of consciousness we struggle to comprehend.

Many actions in nature appear on the surface of it to be deliberate but can be explained by other means.  I would like to see your evidence so that I can rule out natural laws such as osmosis for example.

I don't see how that could be done. What if the natural mechanism of osmosis is the very process that is used.

After all, the natural process of fire is how most road vehicles are propelled. Everything is natural.

Everything is conscious, just not in the same way as we understand it as humans. Rocks, trees, especially trees and their natural, collective sensorial functions. Are you aware that trees are so well entangled with one another (in a forest or grove) that they can move water to the trees that need it the most?

A level of consciousness we struggle to comprehend.

Yes, I do know that. I haven't had much luck talking about that with people online or offline. Most people are VERY resistant to the idea of plant consciousness.  About two years ago, I brought up it to an engineer I know, and she literally laughed in my face. I tried to explain about how consciousness can be defined, including how it can react to its environment, but it did not go over well. But I tried. (We are still friends though!)

"Science says: Yes, your dog really does love you"
http://nypost.com/2017/09/22/science-say...-love-you/

Not only that, but dogs domesticated humans:
"Dogs obviously evolved to depend on humans, but humans also evolved to depend on dogs."