> Doesn't seem like a very good metric.

I don't claim to be able to define it. I just know that we have a fairly binary choice here. When people can't agree then the cost benefit should make the decision until people can align.

With machine consciousness one path leads us to p-zombie's and Holocausts. The other might cost someone $50 or a few extra keystrokes.

Sorry, but folks can just open up their wallets until we can align on an answer.

The global warming debate is similar. Is global warming man-made? Who cares. We have a binary choice: "do nothing" or "do something".

If we do nothing we risk preventable extinction. If we do something it might cost a few bucks for no good reason. The choice is clear.

You can apply it to the dog example as well. Could a reasonable person think dogs are conscious? Yes. So we should be nice to them.

The cost of being kind is low and if we get it wrong we risk torturing a conscious being.