This is certainly a good point. At least I somewhen crossed the line when I just started to see things as input-output-devices with more or less complicated alg

This is certainly a good point. At least I somewhen crossed the line when I just started to see things as input-output-devices with more or less complicated algorithms in the middle. The human has a hideous complicated algorithm in there, involving a live-long history, internal feedback and reflection and arbitrary side constraints. A spider for example is much simpler. 'If the net shakes, walk where it shakes and eat.' (Certainly, + a batch of regulations to be able to walk and sense, but the point stands). However, imo at a certain point, a computer program passes the complexity of, say, a spider. Just consider modern compilers. These things are of baffling complexity and do things inside no human can imagine in details :) Or, imagine data mining software, or even just very complicated, security aware network guards. All of these softwares are very, very complicated in their input-output-behaviour, and even though they are not as complicated as a human, they certainly can compete with a spider, at least for me. And exactly this view is what caused some pretty nasty discussions for me, since some people are just not crossing the line of 'everything is an input-output device of different forms' and they stand hard on the ground that machines and animals are different, because they are machines and animals (and some go ridiculous ways, 'god made animals, humans made machines', and whatsoever, not even some 'but the spider might be more complicated than FOO, because, which whould be a nice discussion :) ). So, overall, I, as a person who is working hard on being a tolerant, non-racist person (which is really hard), don't see a reason to exclude the possibility of machines and robots being conscious, just because 'they are electrical and not organic' (which has a ring of "he is black, he CANNOT do science" to me. Sorry if I just offended a lot of people).