for levin, there is a "ocean of potential selves" inside living systems - the "self" is actually extremely messy, and it isn't clear at what point it emerges from cells/molecules the position that 'humanity/human identity is static and sacred' becomes less tenable by the day

"People need to be really open-minded to take AGI and posthuman intelligence seriously." That might be true, but I think what gets people to break the anthropocentric paradigm is a jarring experience of change that forces them to consider change - a la Meiji Japan:

Levin is right - it seems basically impossible to be confident about "consciousness research" without experiencing the sentience of the thing you're testing i suspect that without careful efforts towards merger / symbiosis we have little chance of crack consciousness in machines