> > On the other hand, it's also important not to *overestimate* the effect here. It is doubtful that even those who cannot bring themselves to chop up a robotic dog would find it *immoral* to do so, whereas most people would have a problem with people that go around chopping up actual dogs. Obviously no matter how realistic a robot dog is, and no matter how much the realism of a robot dog affects our emotional response to it, there still IS a difference in the way real and simulated life impact us, emotionally and morally.
>
> Absolutely disagree. If the dog is indistinguishable from a real dog, then I would aruge it is every bit as "alive" -- in the ways that count -- as a real dog and is deserving of the same moral and legal considerations that a real dog would have. Actually, whether it's alive to me is a non-issue; what's important is whether the thing is intelligent. None but a few nutjobs accuse me of behaving immorally if I cut down a tree that I own, but I have unquestionably ended a life in that case. We don't give plants rights because they have no intelligence, not because they're not alive.
>
> This is something I've thought a lot about, and I think that once we create sentient computer programs we will be obligated to vest in them the same rights as biological life forms of equivalent intelligence. This probably goes to the root of my guess as to what consciousness is, namely a very complicated mix of hardware and software, but in my mind creatures are defined by what they do, not how they were created.

I am completely in agreement here. In fact, I recall having a long discussion on a similar point in your blog a few years back; if you can maybe kick the thing until it starts working again, you should post a link to that thread here. It was a good discussion, and relates well to this one.