Interesting thoughts everyone 
On the subject of computer “rights”:
What is it that endows me with my “rights”? Hoping that you will all be charitable with me and not quibble about the nature of “rights” (as they seem to be understood within the context of this debate), I propose that it is my body–not my mind–that endows me with them.
I am an independent organism, capable of sustained life requiring no care or input other than my own (if that were required). I can feed and care for myself. My cells regenerate themselves. My body powers itself, heals itself, defends itself, regulates itself, and carries within it half of the genetic material necessary to create more beings such as myself. My body makes me human.
My mind, of course, is what makes me feel human–in that it allows me an awareness of myself. The combination of advanced intellect and self-awareness is the one-two punch that has made humankind the stewards of this planet.
So, naturally, discussions of computer “life” always revolve around the mind. Can we create a computer that truly thinks? Feels? One that makes moral and value judgements that are non-empirical? Those things would be truly remarkable, not to mention frightening, if they ever came to pass.
But would they constitute life?
In my view, No.
Life is a property of the universe. Human life is the product of billions of years of chemistry, requiring no forethought or conception (in the mental sense ;)). We are the “magic” embedded within the very materials that comprise our physical world. Computers, on the other hand, are a product of humanity. We conceived of them. We create them, build them and maintain them.
If humankind were expunged from the Earth, it is reasonable to believe that, millions of years from now, we would once again emerge (or at least something very much like us). We are a natural extension of the process that gave rise to every other kind of life on this planet. No matter of time, however, could provide for the evolution of computers. They require the willful organization of materials into a system that is not, and cannot be, self-replicating or spontaneously generated. They are not natural.
But one day, you say, computers will be capable of regenerating and replicating themselves-capable of “living” without the aid of humans. I, for one doubt that will ever be possible. But if it does come to pass someday, I propose that it will render this debate moot. Computers like that will no longer be computers-they will be a new life form. And, given the remarkable abilities they would have to possess, they would not need our sanction or approval. They would simply do as they saw fit.
So, no matter how intelligent, how cogent, how self-aware, how remarkable you make a computer, it is still a machine. Its parts degrade and cannot regenerate. It cannot power itself by natural means. It cannot reproduce itself (at least physically). A human-like computer will not be human.
It will be a parasite, and I argue that it is illogical to place the needs of a parasite on par with those of the host.
Led Zeppelin comes to mind, as I “ramble oooooon”
