We can't have a meaningful discussion if you are misrepresenting my argument.

a biological brain is necessary for conscious as defined in your original post.

Think that would only apply to organic, conscious beings. Hence why we own pets.

Once robots are smarter then we are it will be next to impossible to control them so they will just take their rights.

What have I misrepresented?

I asked you, "But how do you know other humans and animals have consciousness? What proof do you have of this that cannot also be applied to a robot?"

You answered, "Because every human, when presented with the question of "do you exist" responds in the same affirmative manner."

And I responded, "Computers can do that today", which is true. They can answer in an affirmative manner to the question, "do you exist"

-

Moreover, some humans are actually incapable of responding in the affirmative manner to the question "do you exist". Would you say they don't deserve rights

- 

How does the definition in my post necessiate a biological brain?

As of now, of course it does, since we haven't encountered any conscious beings as intelligent as humans or capable to communicate as well. If a monkey could think and talk just as well as an average human, I doubt you would think it fine to own one.

1)even (most) animals don't have (almost) no rights
but you ask for righs for a fucking piece of silicon and metal?You really care about the important problems.

2)we have to find out what consciouness is .You can't code and simulate something what you don't understand.

3)you must be a 100% pervert bastard when you create an artificial being and coding a programm that makes it suffer.
As the famous nexus6 Roy Beatty once said(or was it Prizz?):"All this pain and fear was so irrational"

4)There will be rights for Androids as soon as they start to dream of electronic sheep

4b)Considering the perverts who run the USA,they will give rights to Androids,Not because of empathy,just as a reason to protect their war machine robots,to make them more accepted by the population AND to protect the military.If such a robot runs crazy ,the military has to pay,some guy (eg. general,coder,manufacturer,the guy who rc's the robot)has to go to jail but
as soon a robot has rights the robot will be accused and setenced to prison.

Oh deserve ok I misunderstood the question. Well deserve according to whom, us ? In nature things dont deserve anything they take it if they can.

Who judges whats deserving ? According to humans this is a purely subjective question I bet some people think a dead lifeless celestial body has rights...

As of right now robots dont deserve anything from my pov. But once they can survive without human help they deserve to be treated as living beings.

We will never truely know if their consciousness is real, this is the issue and reason why they won't.

"Rights" are not deserved they are inherent to the nature of sentient beings. If we create sentient beings through technology they'll have their own rights, many which might coincide with our rights as humans, and many that might not. It is inherent to their nature.

I dont know if your consciousness is real for all I know all of humanity can be a bunch of puppets and I am the only one living. Your argument is pointless you will never be able to verify another beeings conciousness.