That «Education!» was not about knowing robotics. It may not be obvious to some that robots are generally not animals; it is hopefully a very small amount of population, but logically it will exist.

It is more possible that some people know that the robot is not an animal, but the perceptual patterns cause a sensational reaction in them, and they may prefer the sensation - an hijacking - to the factual truth (which includes that what superficially corresponded to patterns in the area of "«mean»" are engineering tests on implemented balance systems), overriding it. Some may not even have had to consider sensation (of course, the "sensation" of the common use of "sensational") topically, or may encourage it on a spontaneous value given to "feeling". There, instead, education leads.

Then, again, there will be those that will make a statement of their «aesthetic preferences» as a demand, and not realize that they are personal, subjective, and that to be presented in the common arena grounds, good arguments are required.

Education is a system to refine the mind to sophistication, which has the collective benefit of reducing noise. Which makes it a social concern. Which should get a priority proportional to what the news reveal.

> It is more possible that some people know that the robot is not an animal, but the perceptual patterns cause a sensational reaction in them, and they may prefer the sensation - an hijacking - to the factual truth

Some people just practice morality in day to day life and apply it liberally, not frugally. And importantly, it isn’t an intellectual failing.

Hijacking, which is what was described, is a developmental failing. It is duly to note that the primary sense of intelligence is required in the correct process, for which the subject has to see the mechanism.

What I don't agree with is the idea that there's an underlying "factual truth" here which exists in contrast or opposition to sensations. Quite a lot of educated people argue that morality is based on (or even consists entirely of) our subjective feelings about things.

You have misunderstood what was written: 'sensation' cannot be pluralized as the term expressing «the "sensation" of the common use of "sensational"». In what I have written, there are readable facts and cases of individuals subject to sensation that become passive to it, and lose the facts.

Your «subjective feelings» are not a "good savage": they have their development, and they are integrated part of the whole inner system, in-development, in-refinement. And in fact, I was promoting education, which develops and refines you.