"I passed the Test?"

It seems I'm holding up a bit of a story line. Personally, that's what I wanted. Because what happens next is less scientific and more hypothetical in regards to how a person would react, how the researchers would react. And because it seems like I'm adding new tags all the time, and hardly reusing old ones. And lastly, as terrible as it sounds, how the world and media would react. After supposedly a few trials where an animal, dog, cat, tiger cub, wolf, cow, or any type of animal would affect the entire lab.


"I Passed?"

Brain scans are  the more obvious way to analyze the workings of what happens in the brain. MRIs, which emit radio ways to the brain in a super strong magnetic field. (Why did I include that in there? Because that was the only takeaway from a bioimaging class I had.) It would be necessary to compare the brain activities in the frontal lobe to see how well they mirror humans' brains. And of course, there would be a plethora of tests. And should the research team be successful, what would the celebration be like? Of course there might be food and drink. Would the subject be included in celebration? Would it appreciate the emphasis of its own efforts, even though the work lies with the research scientists who worked on it? Would it want to join with the food, drinks and music? Easy answer. Just ask it. It's a conscious being with it's own abilities and express what it wants easily. 

 Tests from the Outside

  If anything is known in the research world, it's that successful peer reviewed papers are exactly that. Peer-reviewed. Meaning that multitudes of people analyze the procedures, the methods, and the experiments used in the report's final results. And this animal, aware of his surroundings would probably be cognizant of the oncoming battery of investigation. And this is where the experts must tread lightly. Because picture if we did the same to a typical human child. How would the animal then be prepared to mentally handle the onslaught of researchers claiming the animal was a fake, or highly trained to fool, or even supernatural. The best part about this thought experiment is only knowing what the animal experiences based on any human pretending to be in their place. Like I am now. 

My entire point is there must be a balance of how hard we can push the limits of our new sentient creature if they are indeed sentient. It would be best to not inflict emotional trauma to a newly created mind.

Word Gets Out

Of course, the world will find out about a scientifically verified conscious breathing, (and possibly talking) animal. One able to make and construct near coherent sentences. The near sad nature is that as long as the world isn't used to something, outspoken opponents will be the popular crowd. The opponent researcher will claim the videos featuring a talking calf is nothing but video editing. A religious zealot will decry the animal as supernatural, or an evil agent of Satan or Beelzebub. And in this case, it's up to the original creators to adopt a truly protective almost parental role for the young animal, shielding it from the intense onslaught of verbal abuse. Even so, the opportunity for further education is necessary. The ability to withstand slurs and slander like a prophet of old. Admittedly, this would be truly hard, and any direction the animal chooses to take could be given as an argument against its sentience. Passivity implies the animal doesn't understand the hostile language. Aggression implies the animal isn't fully restrained and therefore fails to achieve higher reasons in restraint and understanding. In which case, it comes back to the original idea that only objective tests grounded in 'sound empirical methods' should truly prove to the scientific community.

Also remember what I said about full original thoughts created purely from within the minds of a truly sentient individual. The debate may come far enough that the animal may be called to represent itself. In which case, there is a catch-22. Only humans can defend themselves, so we allow a nonhuman the opportunity to defend its supposed humanity? Convince the people who never anticipated the possibility an actual animal can express itself. And picturing this happen is exactly why they won't let cameras in the courtrooms.

And it is with hope, by word of mouth from scientists to spouse to family to colleague to friends to extended friends and so one, that casual acceptance will be gained. I like to generally believe in the acceptance of humanity. Consider a Gofundme account may pop up for Tracy, the talking Dog or JoJo, the talking horse. The reverse will happen, campaigns to destroy the reputation of the research facility that played God to give an animal consciousness.

Of course, the first will be a miracle. But even as we can understand the animal can converse and relate to humans, learning all about society, consider the wants of the animal. A partner. Of the same species.

So bottom line, if you're going to make one, you'll have to make two! And what should happen if those two desire to make more? Where do their offspring stand if they have the one in a million chance of recreating a sentient one?

It's too irresistible to end in a question. So I leave you with that.

Happy Thinking!