Verbal reports, homology of structure or materials, phylogenetic provenance are all insufficient to make dependable conclusions across the space of possible agents.

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

• Verbal reports, homology, and phylogenetic provenance are insufficient to determine sentience in unconventional agents.claim0.875
  Core claim: Turing test and brain homology fail for synthetic, AI, and radically non-human agents; new frameworks required.
• Verbal reports (the Turing Test) and homology to human brains are utterly inadequate criteria for assessing the status of novel, unconventional agents that offer no familiar touchstone of phylogeny or anatomy.claim0.853
  Core claim that standard criteria fail for novel agents.
• Simplistic criteria like provenance (factory or evolution) and anatomy (homology to humans) were never appropriate; they were heuristics suitable only for past limitations.claim0.814
  Rejection of traditional provenance/anatomy criteria.
• Smith & Boyd (1991) criteria are irrelevant across the vast majority of the space of possible agents.claim0.785
  Dismissal of earlier criteria as too narrow.
• Living structure is enormously susceptible to minor changes, and accuracy of detail is necessary for success.claim0.782
  Warning that the recursion of centers requires extreme precision.
• "[W]e must confess that perception, and what depends upon it, is inexplicable in terms of mechanical reasons... when inspecting its interior, we will find only parts that push one another, and we will never find anything to explain a perception."quote0.780
  Canonical illustration of the Hard Problem intuition that any functional/mechanical explanation faces an explanatory gap for perception
• We must develop principled approaches to evaluating the sentience of (and thus, our responsibility to) beings of unfamiliar provenance and composition.claim0.779
  Call to action for new frameworks.
• If someone develops clear enough introspection, they will eventually conclude that thought is rendered as subtle perturbations in phenomenal fields.hypothesis0.777
  Cube Flipper's prediction about convergence of insight practice on field model.