We could define self-awareness as the ability to pass the turing-test and this is theorically possible from our possible research on machine learning. Overall, humans say that something is conscious when they have empathy with it by any means.

That's what I suspected you'd argue at the beginning. I guess others here will be able to give you some ideas on how to think about this type of philosophy. I can't say much because I think the basis for such a view is not coherent. So we won't get far, I don't think.

I'm sure others here could sharpen your eliminitavist views or challenge you. :cool:

I find it weird that people are very quick to say machines aren’t conscious while not having any clear definition of what “conscious” means or how we can know if something is conscious or not. — khaled

You are quite right that consciousness can be defined in several ways, some of which might include machines. A useful definition of consciousness did not come up yet but probably should have. In relation to the hard problem of consciousness David Chalmers says the question is what is the feeling which accompanies awareness of sensory information and why do we have it? It's Thomas Nagel's; the feeling of what it is like to be something.

What makes you so sure machines don’t feel anything to be machines? The capacity you just gave is not detectable yet. So what makes you so sure what has or doesn’t have it.

Physicalism in a practical sense seems very sensible to me; however, in a strict and technical philosophical sense it doesn’t seem to fit. The fact that I am aware of the physical world only through my experience of it means the physical is deduced from “something else”. Whether this “something else” resolves with anything supernatural is another question entirely, of course.

*

deleted