<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>
Hmm...
The Octo may very well be intelligent but unless they are a self-aware species they are just animals.
Long off-topic post in response to you in case you are interested in the subject, but: I disagree with this statement, but that's probably because I am used to using very specific terms to describe these things, since it's the field I work in. Humans are animals, an animal is just a multicellular heterotrophic eukaryotic organism.
I think what you probably meant was "do they possess self-awareness, because if they don't then they aren't sapient, only sentient animals". Sentience is synonymous with possessing consciousness - the subjective experience of qualia. We now universally agree that the vast majority of higher animals are conscious (sentient), although we don't yet know how widespread that is. The most successfully predictive theory of consciousness that we have does predict that it exists on a gradation from the simplest of animals on up. But regardless, sentience is a pre-requisite for sapience, and unfortunately us neuroscientist folk don't have a universally accepted definition of it. I think the best definition of sapience is also the most stringent - a sentient animal that also possesses reflexive self-awareness: thinking about oneself, thinking about thinking, etc. This necessarily requires a level of intellect above and beyond a very intelligent sentient animal.
And it gets worse in that even by that very specific definition, we don't have a good test to evaluate sapience. The most famous one is the "mirror test for self-awareness". An animal that passes this test, when accounting for all variables and being as stringent with the methodology is possible, is absolutely sapient. It is hard to argue otherwise when they exhibit behavior that passes that test. But this test actually underestimates self-awareness in animals. We know that humans, the Great Apes, various species of monkeys, elephants, Dolphins, and several species of bird pass this test and are unambiguously exhibit reflexive self-awareness. But the test actually requires that a species a) have reflexive self-awareness b ) rely on vision as a primary sensory modality and c) intellectually understand a mirror, which you would think would be a pre-requisite to (a) but actually isn't. So it's a shitty test of anthropomorphic origin. Certain intelligent animals, such as canines which is the species I work with most, *might* pass a test designed to investigate reflexive self-awareness if we used olfaction as the sensory modality instead of vision - we don't know.
So the long and short answer to addressing your question of "is the octopus a self-aware species" is....we don't yet know for sure. Judging by their cognitive capabilities easily overlapping the Great Apes, and judging by the incredible complexity of their unique brain, I would bet my career that they are, in fact, sapient, as other species with their level of apparent intellect most certainly are. But we don't know for sure.
I used them as an example to point out the fallacy of assuming an intelligent extraterrestrial species must resemble us, since right here on Earth some of the most intelligent animals on the planet don't resemble us at all. And this was a fact that was overlooked for a century, as in our arrogance we completely wrote them off because we assumed that they couldn't possibly be anywhere close to as intelligent as us. Oops.
That's what happens when scientists are anthropocentric bags of dicks.