Overlapping consensus on AI-consciousness-related policies is achievable even under persistent disagreement about AI consciousness itself.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Acknowledgment of possible error about AI consciousness, combined with recognition of error costs, can motivate overlapping consensus on precautionary policies.claim0.863
  The error-sensitive model of overlapping consensus.
• Disagreement about AI consciousness is likely to arise and persist in society due to emotional bonds, theoretical considerations, and lack of expert consensus.claim0.856
  Central empirical-sociological claim motivating the paper's inquiry.
• Successful deliberation about AI consciousness requires: seeking overlapping consensus, openness to reasonable compromise, sustaining justified democratic hope, and meeting the burden of recognition.claim0.846
  The paper's concluding four-part synthesis of desiderata for navigating AI consciousness disagreement.
• Expert convergence on the question of AI consciousness is unlikely in the near term.claim0.844
  Supports the premise that societal disagreement will persist rather than be resolved by scientific or philosophical authority.
• If disagreement about AI consciousness arises and persists, how can society navigate this such that people continue to live well together?question0.840
  The paper's central research question.
• Consciousness in AI is best assessed by drawing on neuroscientific theories of consciousness.claim0.830
  Central methodological claim of the paper.
• Treating AI consciousness as a purely private matter, as with religious disagreement, is likely insufficient to manage the resulting political conflict.claim0.830
  Argues against the liberal neutrality solution, motivating the deliberative approach.
• Because no one theory of consciousness is currently dominant, assessments of AI systems should draw on multiple theories and treat their conditions as indicators rather than definitive criteria.claim0.822
  Justifies the multi-theory indicator approach rather than committing to a single theory