There seems to be 3 divisions people make of our universe.
First, the universe. (Space, rocks, etc.)
Then people. (We tend to see ourselves as inhabitants of the universe rather than the universe itself.)
Then technology. (How could a machine be natural if its man made?)
But how could the universe be divided this way? Is anything in the universe something that is not 'stuff-mindlessly-obeying-physics-over-time'?
Think of a sperm cell. It seems almost mindless. It's a life form, but it behaves so simply it almost seems like a programmed machine.. and of course it is in a very real way.
Once the sperm enters an egg, the cells divide accordingly, they form the human structure accordingly, but for some reason once the brain starts developing we instantly reserve that complexity for the mystery of our conscious experience as personal identities. We had matter obeying mindlessly, creating formations over time, but all of a sudden something changes when the brain develops or begins to operate? (I'm not necessarily saying 'no' to that question)
If all matter is equally apart of the universe, and thus natural, and a brain got to where it is naturally according to physics and behaves naturally according to physics, then it would then seem odd to say technology is "unnatural" because it qualifies in all ways.
A natural event has led to the creation of technology and technology itself is nothing more than matter reacting accordingly to physics.
This means your computer has a direct natural lineage to bushes and trees. From the brains and hands that created it, from the machines that were created from other brains and hands, to the DNA passed from the parents of those brains and hands, and from the DNA of their parents all the way down the evolutionary tree to the first life forms and then even further to nonliving basic matter.
A machine would then technically have as much right to "feel" a similar lineage bond to humans as humans feel to apes.
It's just a weird observation... but it leads me to believe that the supposedly special occurrence of consciousness we experience can never be anything more than a totally unevidenced assumption. And without the assumption I'm led to think perhaps consciousness is nothing more than patterns of formation over time that gather more and more connectivity. This may mean the Internet is the most conscious entity in the universe (or probably some more advanced alien society's internet). I would strongly assume though the Internet's consciousness would be as difficult for us to understand as it may be for a rock's consciousness to understand a brain's consciousness so it's not even worth trying to speculate what that's like.
You don't have to tell me that all looks a little crazy but why shouldn't I believe it that way instead of the equally unevidenced assumption most people take that rocks and computers are empty while the brain is some golden goose of reality?