I had nothing of value to add to the discussion, but I found the summaries and alternate views outlines useful.

Very helpful! Thank you, Katja, for your moderation and insights. I will be returning often to reread portions and follow links to more. I hope there will be more similar opportunities in the future!

the concept was great fantastic delirious to me even. the book itself showed how anglo-american logic can get totally lost in its own myriad paradigm defined logic maze and loose sight of the trees and the redefine the forest. All the maybe spinoffs were totally irrelevant as primary causes-field-events. Hardly anything [in the book not the conversation here] mentioned really intelligence artificial or otherwise. Nor was human senescence alluded to to create an avenue how AIs might progress. Sentience was truly thin on the ground. More about un-related conceptualizations that belonged to a degree to thought-experiments that really should have been appendixed. And most books in this field all repeat each other. We don't seem to be making -as a human race- much progress because I think we are doing this all wrong. Like the early aeronauts who flapped wings trying to fly like birds. Until the propeller was used and we had lift-off. Personally we will never have Ais because our brains are quantum processors with sentient mind-full-ness. The latter is specific to our race. This cannot be-as such duplicated. It is a generated field-wave-mind-set that defines us as we conceptualize. Of course AIs can mimic. They might even become DALEKS. Happy Easter as I dive into the Void.