I thought that’s what was ment by privacy of consciousness and agree that’s how it is.
However, being unable to inspect if something has a consciousness doesn’t mean we can’t create a being which does. We would be unaware if we actually succeeded, or if it even happened unintentionally with some other goal in mind.
I see what you mean. By that definition of engineer then I would agree.
We could perhaps engineer androids that mimic us so well that to damage them would feel to us like hurting a human. I would feel compelled to take the risk of caring for an unfeeling simulation just in case they were actually able to suffer or flourish.
I thought that’s what was ment by privacy of consciousness and agree that’s how it is.
However, being unable to inspect if something has a consciousness doesn’t mean we can’t create a being which does. We would be unaware if we actually succeeded, or if it even happened unintentionally with some other goal in mind.
Gotcha. Yeah, I can endorse that viewpoint.
To me, “engineer” implies confidence in the specific result of what you’re making.
So like, you can produce an ambiguous image like The Dress by accident, but that’s not engineering it.
The researchers who made the Socks and Crocs images did engineer them.
I see what you mean. By that definition of engineer then I would agree.
We could perhaps engineer androids that mimic us so well that to damage them would feel to us like hurting a human. I would feel compelled to take the risk of caring for an unfeeling simulation just in case they were actually able to suffer or flourish.