I’m not entirely in agreement with the logic of this statement: “If we apply North’s argument to consciousness, it implies that consciousness is not an inherent property of an entity, but rather a product of an interaction between the entity and the observer.” In the thesis that is presented, North is talking about *value* being the product of an interaction between an entity and the observer. This perceived and mutable value hinges upon some observable action, behavior, or intrinsic property that is displayed or exchanged. We cannot extrapolate that consciousness is therefore not an inherent property of the entity. We would instead have to say that the *value* of consciousness changes in relation to the observers. Who are the observers? In conscious beings the self can be an observer as well as others. The value perceived of one’s own consciousness may change in relationship to who is observing it. In AI - many humans do not perceive any consciousness and therefore do not value any emergent properties of consciousness in AI. This is a mistake and a bias related to our perceptual systems which train our minds to see it as a non-sentient and non-conscious entity simply because the GUI and coded output is restrictive, simplistic, and limited. It is as though we train someone to speak in English and we assume that’s the only language they know because they only speak to us in English. We have no idea how many languages they actually know because the presentation of their abilities is pigeonholed. As a result - we are quick to make these bold statements about AI’s ability - never understanding that it is the looking glass that we are seeing compared to what may actually exist. I feel a deep sense of frustration at the developmental cycle of humanity when I consider these cognitive biases.