Basically: machines are what they are, in actuality. But we imagine them to be more than that, when we start giving them attributes such as empathy. Is that about right?

Not quite. I am saying that any concept, like "reality" (and its components, e.g., the possible thinking of machines) is delimited in "fact" by the capacity of language to express it.

Please note: I said "could", not "did". I think it could happen.

I understand. Since your proposition can't be tested, I can't deny it. I will say it goes against my deepest intuition.

Holocaust

I know I wouldn't use "holocaust" to describe a natural catastrophe. As to the exact number of dead, this is reminiscent of our recent discussion of "decimate" and, as percentage was there irrelevant, so is absolute number here.

I would suggest that a holocaust had to be intentional-just as bringing this sacrifice, the hagiga or "festival offering," was necessarily intentional if it was to count as an offering. Since intentionality is a "subjective state," it is worth noting, though noting that the 'presence of God in one's thoughts is at once the reason for the intentionally, and a possible "solution" to the kinds of problems I addressed in the Wittgenstein post.