[Hajman]

I have no idea what this mystic nonsense is supposed to mean. In any lucid language, "awareness" is "consciousness." There is no such thing as a "congnition" level, since cognition is aspect of rational/volitional consciousess, that is, the intellect, and no "cogition" exists at least until the rudiments of language are developed.

I could continue giving you definitions and examples, but I suggest you first read the page on fetal consciousness before continuing to use arguments from ignorance (a logical fallacy).

As for evidence of consciousness, there is absolutely no objective evidence for consciousness in any creature except in my case, my own consciousness, and in your case, (and I'm only assuming here) your own consciousness. I have to take your word for it that you are consciousness because there is no way you can demonstrate it to me, because it is your own subjective experience.

In that case, one can't tell if someone, or something, is consciousness. The results of tests would be indeterminate and inconclusive. The results of such tests don't fall under these results (they are fairly determinate and conclusive. They only get odd when we're working with high level AI). To claim we can't know, is to ignore that we do know. Rocks don't have consciousness. You and I do. Again, your main argument is one from ignorance (and your underlining argument seems to be the logical fallacy that if one subset isn't, or can't be, known, then no subset can be known).

-The Hajman-

[Hank Kerchief]

In that case, one can't tell if someone, or something, is consciousness. The results of tests would be indeterminate and inconclusive.

There is a better approach to this. If you decide to set some criteria based on the results of specific tests of brain activity and physiological reactions and call that consciousness, that is fine. This is not really the question. There is a bit of bait-and-switch going on.

No doubt adult human beings are conscious, and I believe other adults have the same kind of consciousness I do, but that is not what we are talking about when people start using consciousness as an argument for or against abortion.

The consciousness they are talking about in that case is the difference between conscious (as in being awake and aware) and being unconscious (as in asleep or under anaesthesia). There is no question that all sorts of brain activity develop along with the physical development of the brain, but none of that is necessarily evidence of being conscious, in the sense of being awake and aware.

If you know a little about anaesthesia, auto-suggestion, pschysomatism, it is even possible for adult human beings to be "awake" and not be fully "conscious" as in aware of such things as pain, or even other sensations.

That the unborn can react to stimuli, develop memory, and exhibit other activities associated with the development of the brain is without question. Whether any of these mean the unborn actually consciously experience anything as a result of these activies cannot be demonstrated, and must seriously be doubted. As one other commentator on this thread mentioned, those born prematurely seldom exhibit any activity indicating "awake" consciousness for some time.

By the way, I believe abortion is wrong, but I believe almost every argument made by those who consider themselves the "anti-abortion" movement has done more to harm their cause and promote abortion than anything the pro-abortion people have done.

Hank