Guilty until proven innocent I have realized that whenever I have debated animal sentience, I have taken on the defensive position, trying show that animals are sentient. This exposes a fundamental flaw in the way people think about this issue. Many people assume that animals are robotic, not sentient, and that people should have to persuade them otherwise, rather than having to prove their idea that animals are not sentient. This is the equivalent of “guilty until proven innocent.” Could you imagine if our legal system, as it pertains to humans, was conducted in that way? Humans will take it for granted that other humans have sentience, yet take an opinion in opposition to the apparent evidence. Upon observation of animals, I find it blatantly obvious that those who hold the robotic/instinct opinion should be having to defend their belief, because the up-front behavioral, physiological, and evolutionary evidence supports the idea that other animal species have conscious processes as we do. Therefore, I invite discussion of the idea above and invite holders of the robotic idea to defend it.