IMO a very important question that we will face before too long is: "What is it like to be a computer?". As computers become more sophisticated in interaction and in their ability to learn, they are going to be increasingly recognized as independent actors rather than as simple machines. At that time we are going to have to start considering "the computer experience". I disagree. I don't think consciousness makes sense if defined as a a characteristic that something either has or doesn't. I think that anything that acts upon and reacts to its environment is conscious to a degree, including a cell. It might be an extremely simple form of consciouness, but I would argue that consciousness is a scalar. An ameoba's shred of consciousness is more recognizeable than that of a cell in our body because it can move, which is a shared characteristic of the nature of our consciounesses.Church is sort of cheating the philosophical question raised by Nagel in this example because, of course, a cell is not conscious.