Quantum consciousness...

[The Grand Nudger]

b-mine

I'm not sure why you think this is so.  Do you also think that we cannot objectively observe electrical current with a voltimeter?  That we cannot objectively observe temperature with a thermometer?  Time with a stopwatch?

You are exactly sure why I think so, since we've debated it at least a dozen times.  The issue is to what degree one will accept physical correlates of mind AS mind, and whether this relationship is true by definition, or something which bears the BOP.

If I'm dreaming about a magic unicorn, and you are watching my brain, you will probably know that I am dreaming, and you may eventually be able to know that I'm dreaming about a magic unicorn.  You will not be able to ride it with me.  That's because you aren't actually conscious of what I'm conscious of.  At least right now, we will get MUCH better results by teaching me to lucid dream, by getting me in the habit of writing in a little dream diary as soon as I wake up, and so on.

I can't ride an electrical current, a heat wave, or time either.  Yes, I've heard you try to explain why you make that claim - it's just never made sense to me from any angle, not even a word use angle divorced from any consideration of science you agree/don't agree with.  OFC we can objectively observe consciousness, just as we objectively observe electrical currents, temperature, and time...and just as we can objectively observe a person speaking spanish - even if we have no idea wtf they're talking about...not being a spanish speaker.

Now, you can definitely do physical science.  You can poke brain parts with an electrode and ask me when I wake up what I experienced.  You can crash symbols at the exact moment I reach deep sleep and see if I was thinking anything at all.

However, a science of consciousness which attempts to completely bypass the subjectivity of it is just cheating.  You don't get to say "Well, the robot can see everything in the room, so it's conscious!" and then pretend you're not just conflating a new meaning with the study of subjectivity.  Or, even worse, you don't get to dodge the BOP: "Until you can prove otherwise, these 20 billion androids meet the US Scientific Standard™ for consciousness, so we must legislate to protect their rights."

I'm unaware of any proposal that attempts to bypass the subjectivity of a human being?  Just about any explanation of a human mind will necessarily be bound up in the necessary subjectivity of the human organism.  My mind doesn't have access to your eyes, or anyone else's.  That I can see "everything in the room" isn't, either in human or robot parlance, any certification that I will see what you see.....nor is the ability to "see everything in the room" - so far as I'm aware, the bar of consciousness by any proposal for either myself or AI.

.......................?

Personally, I would suspect that any notions of AI rights would sound alot like notions of animals rights - wherein some compelling similarity between ourselves and animals -or- AI - that is fundamental to our own justification of our own right is pointed to by proponents as a bid for consistency. Good luck to them, on that count. They'll need it. I doubt that anyone in that scenario would seek to shirk the burden of proof..but, rather, to expound upon exhaustive proof and demonstration until the other person is sick of hearing their voice.