IP: Very soon, we will say machines think as we do, consciously.

MK: The effort to make them do so is wasted time and an endeavor only taken seriously by those who are looking to become completely lazy, or isolated from the divergence that individual beings bring.

True or not, this is not on point.

IPIt won't be because we have any idea what consciousness is. But we will mean something when we say it. And that we will say it--and, finally, forget to say it--has a meaning of its own.

MK: Meaning implied by only verbal existence (or lack thereof) is "full of holes" - "The lerprechan rode my blue unicorn" is understandable, but means little (aside from aesthetics)

This is implicit in the statement you seek to refute: "It won't be because we have any idea what consciousness is"

IP: Machines will think as we do when we recognize them doing so.

MK: You're starting to sound like a machine.

I either deny this or take it as a compliment, depending on your meaning.

IP: We will not come to realize that machines think through analysis, machines will come to think when we have empathy for them.

MK: I'd be more inclined to say that that empathy will come when they have empathy for us (which will never happen).

Please see my response to Bridget. I will try to post it today.

IP: Machines have been cultivating empathy in us for a long time.

MK: Maybe in materialists in general, and certainly "consumers" whether they use the machines or not, but leave me out of "us".

Your concerns betray a familiarity with the phenomenon I am portraying with hyperbole. We are in agreement on this: your sentiments and my point coincide exactly.

IP