I don't know. The Human Brain Project is, right now, trying to address this very question. I would be pretty surprised if it succeeded or if it failed. Because I am interested in learning new things.
I asked you the same question a while ago.
I asked you if this project succeeded, would you accept that consciousness is an emergent property of a complex system or would you deny by moving the goal posts and a) saying that this computer simulation is acting as some sort of 'consciousness' receiver or b) deny that it was really conscious?
If I was convinced that the program was genuinely conscious, then I pretty much would. I might take a bit of time to decide definitely (because AI can be a slippery concept) but it would pretty much do it!
I then asked what standard you would use to test for consciousness and then asked if the Turing test would be sufficient.
And I replied that the standard Turing test isn't comprehensive enough, and it doesn't really deal with programs like ELIZA. I'd also want to know something of what was inside, because consider this. Suppose someone cobbled together a chess program, and a checkers program, and an algebraic manipulation program, and a few more for good measure, It might be possible to give the impression of a high level general intelligence that could turn its hand to any task!
So, basically, we've just circled around each other.
Of course, we are talking about experiments that have not been done!
A repeatable test for any of the following: clairvoyance, mind projection, remote viewing, mind reading, telekinesis, or telepathy. All of which would show that the mind isn't 'trapped' in a brain.
This test would have to pass scientific muster and I would like it to pass a test for fraud by people who are good at fooling other people*
Why the emphasis on repeatability - providing the performance does not drop anywhere near chance levels that should be good enough. There really is a lot of evidence, and you could start with Rupert Sheldrake and his experiments with dogs. However, here is something by Michael Shermer - a man you probably approve of:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/
It is probably more typical of natural ψ events, in that it is much stronger, but spontaneous. I think parapsychology experiments tap into some of that, but in a weakened form because there is little or no emotional content in most such experiments. Sheldrake seems to have managed to reintroduce some emotion into his experiments, and he gets strong results. Of course introducing the real world always opens room for more quibbling.
Why not roam about on his website (always bearing in mind that he was a Director of Studies in biology at Cambridge University)?
That's it. If these phenomenon are clearly demonstrated, I would have no reason to deny them. Why would I?
Well things are never quite that simple. It you read a paper in chemistry and you really didn't believe the result, or didn't want to believe it, you could start trying to pick at the experimental details. You might ask if all the apparatus had been cleaned, and if so with what solvent. When you got the answer to that, you might ask what evidence there was that the solvent hadn't been polluted, etc. If all else failed, you might express doubt about the honesty of the author of the paper.
That is a caricature of the typical response to any research that shows evidence of ψ phenomena. The deep point is that ordinary science would collapse if the same standards were applied. Normal science works by accepting seemingly well conducted research on a tentative basis - with belief gradually hardening the more results accumulate.
However, I would ask you to identify if there is any test that would dissuade you from your position. You don't even need to tell us what it would be. I am only asking if you are self-aware enough to see if such a test exists.
If there is no test, then you are taking a position of faith, not scientific inquiry.
Acceptable levels of computer consciousness would do the trick, as already discussed. In fact back in the 1980's I assumed, like most people, that AI was close. It was the remarkably poor results from many heavily funded AI projects that contributed to my thinking again.
* Uri Geller fooled several scientists with common mentalist tricks. You really do need someone like James Randi to test for hoaxers and liars.
As I understand it, there is a video in which he seems to cheat - maybe more than one, I am not sure. However, people like that are put under insane amounts of pressure to perform. It is rather like the game we play on politicians in the UK - particularly education ministers - they get asked simple arithmetic questions like 6 x 9 in the middle of an interview. The mistakes are very funny, but given the stress they may not tell us much about their numerical competency.
Does science really have to rely on magicians like Randi to decide if they are being hoaxed - I mean they have access to sound proof electromagnetically shielded rooms, and any amount of equipment!
How does anyone know if Randi is telling the truth - I don't think he is even required to perform the same 'trick' himself!
David