"He argued that no computer could ever fully understand a human being. Then he went one step further: no human being could ever fully understand another human being... We can use language to communicate, but ... some things can’t be communicated at all."

I've also been reading up about spiritualism recently and there's a fascinating resonance: at the time, spiritualism was viewed by many "rational" Victorians as a more scientific approach to the question of Heaven. It made Heaven into a place that you could be "in", seancés could "test" it.

Just as modern AI loons view AI as a demonstration of their fascistic worldview that all human thought is mere calculation and that we are nothing more than meat-processors. (If that's true, then compassion is irrelevant, the weak and infirm are "buggy", etc)

in both cases, the fear that we - humans - really are unique and precious is so terrifying to the self-declared rationalist that it is easier to believe there are self-aware ghosts beyond the veil / inside the server - than it is to believe that kids dying in poverty are as human as you

@joningold It absolutely is a failure of courage in the face of the, admittedly terrifying, demand to love.

@victorgijsbers the article contextulises it within the ww2->vietnam war period in the US which makes a ton of sense; a period in which the state was dedicated to the principle of xeno-ifying the entire outside world