Nympho, you have a defendable and valid definition of consciousness, but it is very limiting. You seem to be defining consciousness as a multi-cellular biochemical process above a certain threshold of complexity, and since pain is a function of consciousness, living organisms that are not sufficiently complex cannot “feel” anything because life is nothing more than automated biochemical reactions engaged in the sole purpose of collecting more energy than it is spending.
I know that what we are talking about is something that is very subjective; it has feet in the scientific, philosophical, and spiritual realms, so I will propose that these biochemical reactions are a function of life, and consciousness is an inherent part of being alive, not the other way around.
A few points-
The Native Americans, probably most aboriginal cultures, held that everything possessed consciousness, even the rocks and water. These were rational people who were just as intelligent and observant as we are in this day and age, and to discount their wisdom and knowledge is, in my opinion, extreme foolishness. Aboriginal peoples have an understanding of the functioning of ecosystems,
sustainable land management practices, and the usage of untold plant resources on a level that Western civilization, after five hundred years of science, is only now beginning to grasp.
There was a fair amount of scientific research happening in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries dealing with the concept of aether, life force, which was hypothesized to be another force in the same vein as the electromagnetic, gravitational, and strong and weak nuclear forces. It couldn’t be quantified therefore the concept fell into obscurity and the realm of metaphysics. Rudolf Steiner did develop the principles of Biodynamic agriculture based around harnessing this life force, and Biodynamic farming works. It produces amazing results in plant productivity and soil health. A few other interesting people- Nikoli Tesla and Edgar Cacey.
This leads me to “The Secret Life of Plants” by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird. It has been documented that plants do respond in a verifiable way (polygragh) to their environment, not just to temperature or water stress but if someone yells at it or threatens to cut it or even another plant in the room or down the hall!
I do appreciate the beauty of cellular physiology. It is absolutely mind blowing that the same DNA molecule, depending on the base pair arrangements, can define a bacterium living in a sulfur jet a mile beneath the ocean, a venus flytrap, or me. The process of translation and transcription is a molecular dialogue with the outside environment. DNA chooses to express itself in whichever way is needed for its particular setting. A cell in my stomach lining has the exact same DNA as a cell in my brain, it just expresses differently. I simply can’t accept that it is something that just “works”. Life is something that is struggling against the laws of thermodynamics. Chemical reactions have the tendency to dissapate, while living organisms try to accumulate. That to me is consciousness; life is more than a chemical process. A computer will not struggle to keep itself turned on and it won’t compete against the toaster for outlet space. So I do believe that all living things have consiousness, maybe not self-awareness.
Sorry for getting so off topic, a mantis eating a fish leads to a discussion of the nature of consciousness.
It’s all in good fun. By the way,to bring it all back, I feel that there is nothing wrong with an invertebrate eating a vertebrate. It happens all the time. But the animal rights types can be seriously motivated and vocal, and once something gets regulated or made illegal it is hard to get it back.
May it rest in peace,
Ray