I'm happy to follow your info and evaluation as to Sophia .Yet, at this stage, I consider those insects much more sentient than any machine, including the chatbot AI ludicrously granted various undeserved honorifics:I would question that the bot is non-human. I would argue that it's just an extension of its maker's consciousness.In October 2017, Sophia was given Saudi Arabian citizenship, and became the first robot to receive citizenship of any country. In November 2017, Sophia was named the United Nations Development Programme's first Innovation Champion, and is the first non-human to be given a United Nations title.
Sy Borg wrote
I try to keep my feelings for inanimate things in what I conceive to be their proper place as 'different' from animate. I try to cling to reason although I struggle as inanimate things seem to contain my identity and the identities of others. When I drove out the car dealership in a newer car I actually said goodbye to my faithful little old Fiat . I could see her where they placed unwanted cars.Consider the reverence and/or love we have for the non-living - the Moon, sacred objects, priceless artefacts, gemstones, precious metals, ancient ruins, buildings protected by heritage laws, large rocks (Uluru is only the biggest and most revered, but there are others), paintings, sculptures, musical instruments, mobile phones, clothes, family keepsakes, old photos.
We humans have perhaps the closest relationship with geology of any creature that is not a lithotroph. Our intersection between biology and geology has taken us this far, with geology/the non-living gaining ever more influence and dominance over the living.
I do however appreciate "earth to earth dust to dust", probably because it's a consolation. Consolation may be why Sartre's dichotomy between being for itself(and others) on one hand, and on the other hand being in itself appeals to me. I imagine Sartre's Cartesian trend can be avoided if I tell myself beings in themselves are nothing but their histories that we tell about them, whereas beings for themselves(and others) are Daseins of experiences.
In the view of lithotrophs, a view unknown to me until a few minutes ago you opened my eyes, I have to conclude there is no dichotomy such as I imagined, and instead it's part of panpsychics' continuum. Nevertheless, would you agree that experience is the concept that we should link to value? We very much value lithotrophs that can eat plastic especially from the ocean water. However do you value lithotrophs not for themselves but for what they do for the forms that intend so very much more, such as plants and animals?
Now that you have said "lithotrophs" and I have Googled lithotrophs I must agree with you. Do you think your overview of the trend as you describe is consistent with what you wrote about the Sophia system? Anyway, I do.The trend seems likely to continue, which I find extraordinary. We Earthlings started out as rocks, loose chemicals and water. We then complexified and became what we call "biology" over billions of years, and now we are reverting back to geology again. However, this time the "geology" (ie. silicon etc) will be intelligent and possibly even sentient in its own way. It's as though life was just a phase in a general process of complexification.
Now, if I am sure I want to persist with the idealism theory of being I'll have to persist also to claim that experience, in the absence of multitudinous Daseins, is absolute. However, naturally, whether or not that implies 'life after death' I have no idea.