> My own view is that consciousness is intimately tied to our nature as living flesh-and-blood creatures. In this picture, being conscious is not the result of

> My own view is that consciousness is intimately tied to our nature as living flesh-and-blood creatures. In this picture, being conscious is not the result of some complicated algorithm running on the wetware of the brain. It is an embodied phenomenon, rooted in the fundamental biological drive within living organisms to keep on living. If I’m right, the prospect of conscious AI remains reassuringly remote. How is this not just dualism by some other name? How could anyone think the brain isn't the cause of consciousness? > Certainly, nobody should be actively trying to create machine consciousness. I think machines will be our superior descendants. Why isn't that a good reason to create conscious machines? > Time is short to develop a rational and fit-for-purpose framework to ensure that the enormous potential of AI is used for the benefit of humanity and the planet. No. Explode into new parts of phase space and press go. A la, eukaryogenesis, multicellularity, social awareness, fire, cities, etc. What happens happens. "But but but we peaked at tiktaalik" isn't really persuasive argumentation to me.