> 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.

This is an interesting point, and it's one I avoided responding to for a while so I could think a bit about it. Ultimately, I decided that I don't agree with you, that "living intelligence," not just "intelligence," is what's important, and that "really good robotic simulation of a living intelligence" is not, ipso facto, alive. I'm pretty sure I believe that apart from any spiritual considerations, but I'm not sure I can back it up that way.

*shrug* It's an interesting perspective, nonetheless. wintermute just made a similar point to yours, but I think centering the issue on "intelligence" rather than "consciousness" makes more sense. Creation of intelligence is a fact of modern technology; creation of consciousness by modern technology is a philosophical speculation.