I agree with you completely! At the same time, it's worth noting that it makes sense to approach the problem in a reductive (using the word loosely, not sure i

I agree with you completely! At the same time, it's worth noting that it makes sense to approach the problem in a reductive (using the word loosely, not sure if it's completely accurate) manner, i.e., keep replicating features and capabilities of human brains until we possibly hit a wall in the form of consciousness, although it's quite possible that it turns out to be an emergent property [1], although I suspect it's a bit more complicated than that. [1] It seems to me that most explanations that consciousness is "emergent" or an "illusion" would never _predict_ the experiences we actually consider consciousness, like "fire is caused by phlogiston": http://lesswrong.com/lw/ip/fake_explanations/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ip/fake_explanations/. At the same time, I recognize that I couldn't tell the difference between this world and one populated by philosophical zombies (http://lesswrong.com/lw/p7/zombies_zombies/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/p7/zombies_zombies/). Edit: I should clarify regarding my footnote that I don't believe in epiphenomenalism, I believe consciousness is a purely material phenomenon, I like to think of it as an overview process running in the brain, responding to the other stimulus to take appropriate action.