HN user
Well, if you put it that way, maybe I am to certain. I'm aware that there is still a lot of things that we don't know or even have a single clue about. That we can gain new data and that equation can change.
But on the other hand, agnosticism is kinda lack of balls ^^ What you stand for determines what you do. So clearly its better to stand for something, even if you sometimes get wrong.
Of course, I was making an assumption that humans are conscious. Even if consciousness is not what we belief, even if its complicity deterministic.
I mean, if something exists, we can copy it. Even if humans only mirror consciousness, we can copy the mirror.
Otherwise we're talking about teology, and, if such, I won't be part of the debate. Not my field.
What? Conscious machines already exists. Now its only a matter of coping them into different material. And maybe learning about consciousness in process.
I mean, we know almost all about the low level - neurons. They are relatively easy. Signal goes in, signal goes out. So now, even if we don't understand this whole high level emergent process we can still copy it. Its like if we had a assembler code of some big and highly complicated algorithm - even if we don't understand it we can still rewrite it to different machine and it will work.
There are about 100 billion neurons and about 500 trillion connections in brain of an adult, so you can take Moors law and estimate, not if, but when it will be possible to brute-force brain. I say 2025.