> I'm still not sure I buy this argument. For me, those are things you just do because you have to. Like if you want to ride a motorcycle for enjoyment, you have to put gas in it and keep it maintained. You don't take pleasure in putting gas in your hog, you don't derive joy from taking it to the shop to get it tuned.

Yes, but that's a machine. If anything, this supports my argument that caring for a machine is not inherently a source of pleasure. But feeding a dog is different, first because it's something we relate to biologically. We feed ourselves, we feed our families -- some of us feed the homeless at soup kitchens and most of us would feel pretty good about doing it if we did. But motorcycles neither feel nor express pleasure or gratitude that we fill them up with gas. It doesn't satiate the nurturing instinct we have as human beings.

It occurs to me that this touches upon why nurses and patients so infamously fall for each other. One is a care-giver, and the other is a care-receiver. Something inherent in our biological make-up creates an emotional bond within us when we're on either side of a relationship like this.

So the question is, if a motorcycle or a robodog *simulated* gratitude at the care it received, would that be enough? I still say no, at least for most people -- deep down, you still "know" it's a simulation and not something an actual consciousness is feeling, and that's enough to break the illusion.

Not that I'm not saying a robodog wouldn't be a pretty cool geek toy in its own right. They're just not going to replace real dogs.