No proof is required beyond psuedoscientific tests and the "saints" of this belief system must be given absolute authority over the system to ensure no one commits any sins.
>that just pops out if you have a large enough system.
certainly not a claim I would make.
>No proof is required
Isn't it legitimate to reason on a more abstract level and try to make inferences that way?
>psuedoscientific tests
no clue what you're referring to here or in the rest of your comments about saints and authorities and sins. Another parallel to religion could be drawn w.r.t. the idea that only human souls could ever feel suffering but I don't think it's such a productive level to have this conversation on.
Given the complexity of behavior observed in nature that doesn't require conscious experience, yet is more advanced than what we can achieve in circuitry, I think it would be too early to close off this area of research.
How sure are you that the human brain cells in the vat are not aware and suffering?
That doesn't follow. You could, for example, be a substance dualist. Alternatively you could suspect that there exists some special as yet undocumented property of the human CNS that is required as a prerequisite. Or etc.
What's going on here? Answer: Fallacy of affirmation of the consequent.
This isn't a freshman philosophy seminar.
No molecules are conscious.
> Most human brains are.
Not relevant because we are talking about brain cells, not brains. It's both a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent and a fallacy of composition.
> This isn't a freshman philosophy seminar.
And thus one goes through life blithely using fallacious logic while dismissing the fact that it is logically incoherent.