> ALL evidence we have to go on that real meatdogs have any sort of internal life that would indicate what we call consciousness comes from observing their behavior.

I disagree with this assertion. A critical part of the evidence we have to believe dogs are conscious is in relating dogs to ourselves. We figure humans are conscious because each one of us *has* a consciousness that clearly exists apart from our behavior. I could be sitting here thinking about pretty much anything I want to and being aware of my own thought processes, and you wouldn't know the difference by observing me. Those higher-level thought processes are, to me, a much greater part of one's consciousness than the *observable* behavior I exhibit by reacting to external stimuli -- much of which is *subconscious* anyway.

So when we observe dogs, maybe we get a piece of the picture about doggy consciousness, but doesn't a big part of it come from recognizing that the processes by which humans and dogs come into existence and function as organisms are so similar that it makes sense to expect similarities in the unobservable facets of our beings?

By contrast, we also understand that computers and robots come into existence via entirely different means. They're constructed differently, and they work differently. If we intentionally manufacture computers with external similarites to mammals, WHERE is the logic in assuming that *internal* similarities have also come into being as a byproduct?