If brain is the source. And it is two organs. Which of the organs is the source?

It is slightly interesting question. There is unlikely to be too many good outcomes from answers. But it might be something to think about...

Can the observer be observed(by the observer) ?

Of course

Your own reaction shows a certain level of thinking / quality of thinking or depth of thinking.

Its hard to describe or explain this to you because you will only realize this when you look back after you thought more.

Babies are not sacred. You and me are not sacred. Humans are not sacred.

Our biological programming / priming gives us this 'feeling'.

And consiousness alone is not the thing which makes us not kill most humans, after all we still kill babies and humans daily.

Alone the word sacred is weird in this context. A lot more of questioning the level of consciousness.

Btw. the lucidity you mentioned, might be a conscious experience in development. it might be the same as what you do, it might be not. You point it out because for you its the quality of a human

For decades, surgery was performed on infants without anesthesia because they were believed not to be conscious.

Probably something to do with the way we tend not to retain memories from before about 2 y/o.

And yes, obviously absurd, one would think. Yet something that it’s important for modern medicine to have evidence of.

> If babies were not conscious then killing them would be no problem.

That's why the EMTs and paramedics all cluster around car accident victims, asking whether they are conscious, so they can kill them already

"911, what is your emergency? ... Oh, your grandmother is unconscious? We'll send out our firing squad right away!"

> If babies were not conscious then killing them would be no problem. It is their capacity for consciousness (however nascent) that makes them human, and therefore, sacred

Once you have a neural network as sophisticated as a baby’s will it be immoral to turn it off?

The article says "newborns", not generically babies. Newborns don't have language, memory or plans, and can't really see or control their bodies. I'm not sure how you would prove that they're conscious.

What a bizarre response to this.

> If babies were not conscious then killing them would be no problem.

Say what? No. Killing them would be a problem because they're human. With that comes the capability to become conscious, whether or not they are at the time they are babies.

> It is their capacity for consciousness (however nascent) that makes them human, and therefore, sacred.

No, it's their DNA that makes them human.

Its a fundamental question to us what consciousness is, who has it, what levels or qualities of it gets.

Only 50 years ago the nazis dehumanized mentally and bodily disabled people.

Other cultures to this day lock humans away with mental illness because they don't understand it.

The complexity of LLMs reached already dimensions that are not that far away from the complexity of human brains and we are only at the beginning of this journey potentially.

World models are getting developed and we havent even tried to build systems similiar to what our brains architecture with a default mode network would look like. We only throw massive amount of resources onto LLMs.

> Nobody thinks an image generator is conscious.

Plenty of arguments on HN that LLMs are conscious. They are, of course, wrong, but plenty of people seem to believe it-Lord know why.