[oklol123]

There is also no evidence that consciousness can be emulated on machines. Before we don’t even understand how the brain functions and creates consciousness, we aren’t really smarter than fifty years ago. Until then we just created machines that can find optimized patterns in highly abstracted actions of humans. Yes, Stockfisch can beat you at chess, but you can’t ask it what the difference between poker and backgammon is. Currently there doesn’t exist a general artificial intelligence.

[avmich]

If consciousness is a special state of matter, it should be analysable and detectable, right? Can't we apply scientific methods to the hypothesis that "there exist a special state of matter"?

[oklol123]

I don’t think we can replicate this state solely with current electric components. What is way more interesting would be the connection of human nerve tissue and computers.

[JackFr]

You think we get to know, or at least we can know, everything we want to know. Why? Is it faith? Or has your brain tricked you?

[avmich]

No, I don't think. I assume, and bring arguments, and can listen to others.

[gfodor]

Hell, we don’t even know if the brain is the causal creator of consciousness. It’s a contrarian view to think otherwise, but it can’t be proven false.

[Enginerrrd]

It can be proven false to any reasonable degree of certainty. With experiment, you'd increasingly be looking at an overwhelming probability that it is, or that the universe is actively conspiring against you to fool you on that notion. Which is, frankly, a bad argument.

If something is possible, but has measure zero in the probability space, it's really not worth considering.