But it also doesn't make sense unless you embrace some sort of Cartesian dualism.... humans are physical machines with some sort of magical "spirit" added. I would think science oriented people would reject that sort of view in 2019.
AFAIK Dick always wrote about "what is actually real?", and in this book, it's about empathy and wanting things to be real. He manages to incorporate several levels.
Animals, replicants, spouses and God. What about life-affirming replicants, what about deplorable humans? It is impressively thorough!
It's not an easy book to grasp (for me at least). My interpretations is that the "other's'" status is about our recognition through wanting other to want something and how difficult that is to accept and align.
If "the other" isn't going to want to recognize itself in your desires, the relationsship isn't real.
At that point, I think the subject has transcended robots.
The only place where it could be a debate is in the fictional realm or when speculation about technology at least decades out.
So its hardly surprising that most people have that view.
BTW, let me ask you this: do you think a mosquito can feel pain? (or if not, what is the simplest animal that can?) Are those feelings real?
A mosquito is simple enough that I don't know, nor do I particularly care. Most insects are just biological automotons imo. So they react to pain, but I'm not sure they feel it.
As for the smallest, I don't know. It pretty much falls in my general philosophy when things are in a spectrum or there is a line. Typically there are things that are definitely white and things that are definitely black, so there's a line but it's somewhere in the large zone of grey. Or maybe a clear line doesn't exist and we can only ever slowly narrow the grey zone. Either way, this uncertainty doesn't invalidate whether black and white examples exist imo.
For instance, bacteria definitely don't matter, whereas humans definitely do. Though thinking about it the line probably depends on the observing species, would elder gods think anything on our plane is real as we are so insignificant and simple compared to them?
After all, our emotions are just chemicals and electricity too. Are we just a simulation of X?
simulating emotions or simulating intelligence. It's all the same. Model it, code it, and see if it works.
An artificial diamond is a real diamond, for instance.
What if we were able to make a an exact copy of a human brain, and the behavior was indistinguishable from a "naturally formed" human? Would that still be like a flight simulator vs actual flight?
I think a better analogy is a natural diamond vs an artificial one. Or for that matter an artificial heart. Is an artificial heart vs a natural heart like a flight simulator compared to actual flight?
At some point while building better and better flight simulators we might end up building an actual plane. Same can happen when simulating emotions or intelligence.
All this makes sense without involving Cartesian dualism.
And what about the word "flight"? Most people think airplanes fly, even though they are not autonomous entities, and they don't flap their wings like birds or insects or bats. But is it really flight?
Ok, you probably think yes, of course it is. Then what about submarines? Do they swim? If not, why not?
(yes I am referencing Edsger Dijkstra's famous quote that is relevant here: "The question of whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim.")
Whereas when robots get advanced enough, it'll be the difference between a model plane and a parrot. They both fly, even if they achieve it slightly differently.