But since it's a purely philosophical argument.. If you create a program with all the sentient properties, feels pain etc.. Does it not afford these magic rights you speak of? After all pain is just an electrical impulse expressed as a negative emotion..
If vegetables prove to create a chemical response to trauma, does that not mean they feel pain too?
If we create a program that has all of that, then yes.
Note that my criteria (individual items are of course up for discussion, but the point is a broad range of human/animal like criteria) go way beyond pain. Emotion, empathy, maybe other things like self-learning etc. are a long, long way off being implemented successfully in software. I think that maybe when we reach the point where they are, it may not seem such a daft idea to protect them in this way. "After all pain is just an electrical impulse expressed as a negative emotion" which helps to illustrate the close relation between us and the (currently) mythical software we are talking about.
The rights which we are talking about aren't "magic" as you quote. They actually serve a practical purpose and in my opinion are a positive evolutionary trait. When applied to humans, their purpose is obvious (protecting us from each other, promoting cooperation and ensuring our survival as a species). But we live in a world beyond just humans, and inter-species protection and co-operation is in both human and animal (and, one day perhaps, computer) interests.
On the subject of vegetables, I have never found cabbages to be particularly empathetic, so I happy to relegate them to the inferior classes for the time being.
I like your little reproductive capacity caveat.
But since it's a purely philosophical argument.. If you create a program with all the sentient properties, feels pain etc.. Does it not afford these magic rights you speak of? After all pain is just an electrical impulse expressed as a negative emotion..
If vegetables prove to create a chemical response to trauma, does that not mean they feel pain too?