[BoxOfRain]

I disagree, my problem with claims of machine consciousness is that they are effectively unfalsifiable without both an adequate theory of consciousness and a way of measuring it empirically. We don't have these, so in my opinion while this is a question we may answer in the future, we definitely lack the theories and tools to make particularly credible claims at the moment. Neither pessimism nor boosterism is warranted yet in my view.

I suspect the space of forms consciousness can take is enormous, and it likely can exist in many forms other than the one we usually experience. I wouldn't rule out machine consciousness as a possibility, but without an adequate theory of consciousness it's just not something I think we can claim is possible or impossible yet with much credibility. That's not a religious argument, if anything it's the argument of an agnostic.

[mlyle]

The problems with any claim of consciousness are that they are unfalsifiable.

But it seems to be pretty hard to come up with a coherent claim of meat-consciousness that really excludes the possibility of machine-consciousness without some kind of really motivated reasoning.

[scarmig]

I agree that all our theories of consciousness are deeply inadequate. And it it were purely a scientific question, I'd be fine holding off on this question. But consciousness plays a huge role in most theories of ethics, and agnosticism with a negative prior will inevitably lead to unethical actions, if there are any beings that exist outside our "is it human?" heuristic.

Other adult humans? Babies? Fetuses? Brain dead patients? Severe Alzheimer's? Higher apes? Mammals? Vertebrates? Jellyfish? Trees? Organic aliens? Inorganic aliens? A pile of dirt?

Without a good theory of consciousness, we can't answer yes or no for any of them. And yet we don't have a good theory of consciousness and still want to make ethical decisions. What do? We have to rely on gestures toward a theory of consciousness and make decisions based on it, despite its flaws.