What do you mean by the above phrase? What ‘problem’ is science supposed to ‘solve’ re. consciousness?

Science’s original root word was ‘scien’, which translates/means ‘to know’… ‘science’ therefore could be taken to mean ‘knowledge’. Science (the discipline) builds in an incremental fashion and adds to this body of knowledge from many sources. It may miss sources in the short term and therefore not have a complete picture, or it may make hypothesese which prove to be incorrect in the long-term and science is prepared to accept this as part of the onward quest for information and it’s applications. However, stating ‘consciousness’ as something to be solved, I don’t personaly believe comes under the remit of science or any avenue of it (as I ‘know’ it anyway!). I am unaware of any current study or experimentation designed to ‘solve’ consciousness because consciosness is a ‘problem’.

So could you please clarify your statement, so as to aid me in understanding your question or point of intent. Thanks.

It is a perceptive limitation in the human species that allows it, on a whole, to fumble about in its arrogance and its ignorance all the while seeing itself as something superior, separate, and apart from all other sentient beings on this planet. The destructive tendencies of this species will abate only with the realization that it merely a part of the whole. Neither more nor less than any other…simply a part of the whole with the same responsibilities to all others as it has to itself. In other words, once it is gone.

I understand morality. We hold each other to a common standard but sometimes it takes a dialogue to raise the consciousness of human beings on the whole.

Take for example, slavery. Despite the fact that there were people who found it morally repugnant, it took time for our collective consciousness to agree. Wiping out native people to take over their land? Child labor? What about smacking children to make them do what you want? Morality is what keeps us from harming one another.

“But what happens in a community that is not emotionally affected by the death of animals? Nothing.”

Nothing, for now. But as we evolve as a species, we recognize that there are actions we took that caused harm and our sense of what is wrong begins to encompass those new beliefs. There are human beings who are not emotionally affected by the death of other humans. Should we compromise? Of course not.

The fact that animals are sentient, have a consciousness, means they are capable of feeling pain, not just physically. Animals form attachments, they are capable of trust, and have a will to optimize their quality of life. Taking that away is wrong.

What makes this worth considering? The fact that there is no moral justification for eating meat.

The only reason we eat meat is because we have always eaten meat. This is morally irrelevant.

I believe that the point being made was based on a hypothetical, not actuality. Like discovering consciousness in animals, say for the sake of argument and understanding “vegetarians’ logic,” what if we found out that plants were conscious? Should we stop eating plants, as well? However, I think the argument is lame because we are lucky enough to live in a world where plants do not seem to be conscious, and we are lucky to be able to metabolize some plant matter.

“Our cognitive evolution allows us to be morally responsible.”

I am not sure you understand how morality works. Who holds us responsible? Morality only works because each human holds every other human responsible for his/her actions. This is also regulated by conscience. But what happens in a community that is not emotionally affected by the death of animals? Nothing. The conflict arises when you combine those people with vegetarians, for example. So to whom do you cater? You can’t please everyone. Sacrifice and compromise are the glue of society.