I think it's extremely likely that humans are going to have a very hard time in the near future coming to terms with the fact that we are what are "in" our brains, and that our brains are basically just biological computers whose inputs, outputs, and how it converts the two, are very much a part of the natural universe and can be explained. And once we can explain it, we'll be able to predict it and thereby control it.

I know what you're asking and the point you're trying to make, and I totally agree that it's an interesting problem. Perhaps one method is that non-humans will get rights when they evolve to the point to create their own rights and the means with which to stop other things from trampling on the rights they have assigned themselves.

I'm with you. I might have said it a little differently in that I believe that rights are societal conventions and written agreements that we give each other and protect for one another. Without conscious agreement to the system in which those rights exist, other bases need to be established.

Perhaps, but "feelings" are more complicated than that. Pain isn't just a little flag that gets set to TRUE. At the very least, it's rewiring your neurons to avoid that experience, initiating instincts, and affecting your entire brain.

Definitely, but then again any AI worth a damn isn't going to have a "sad flag" either.

My point was that understanding the nature of an emotion in a trivial way should be orthogonal to how we think about what rights that being should have. At some level, we're all machines. Just because one's software runs in silicon vs gray matter; just because one's hardware was deliberately built and is understandable in computing terms doesn't mean that we really understand what it is to be sentient with respect to rights to be free and exist.