Animal sentience? Neuroscience has no answers
Yoram Gutfreund
Animal Sentience 2017 DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1231 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Commentary Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Citations | 2 |
| Key points | Argues that the scientific data reviewed by Woodruff bear on fish consciousness only if a small set of so-called "requirements for consciousness" are valid, and that such criteria are external, highly questionable, and unfalsifiable. Concludes that the neuroscientific study of animal consciousness fails to resolve which species are sentient and that fish consciousness remains a matter of belief. |
Abstract
Woodruff’s target article provides a detailed review of comparative studies on brain and behavior in teleosts. However, the relevance of the scientific data to the question of consciousness rests solely on the validity of a small set of so-called "requirements for consciousness." I use the target article to demonstrate that the neuroscientific study of animal consciousness in general relies on external, highly questionable and unfalsifiable criteria, and therefore fails to resolve the question of which animal species are sentient. Fish behavior can be remarkably complex, but whether fish are conscious remains a matter of belief.