I don't see why you feel the need to keep setting up these straw men. It might make for nice rhetoric, but it is more than a little disingenuous. Not only was

I don't see why you feel the need to keep setting up these straw men. It might make for nice rhetoric, but it is more than a little disingenuous. Not only was that geocentrism piece not an argument or claim that I've made, but I've never seen anyone make it in that manner either. But perhaps you know that and were intentionally misrepresenting their arguments. Back on topic, no, your concluding claim is not true. To reach your conclusion you would, at the minimum, need to assume that a machine can simulate arbitrary physical phenomenon, which is not a forgone conclusion. For instance, the "thinking done by neurons" you refer to made be reliant on some facet of the real numbers that is simply not computable. Perhaps at any level of approximation of it, what we discern as AGI may not manifest. Etc. But, finally, your premises are faulty. What most people really mean when they reference AGI or "truly intelligent" is not intelligence, but wisdom. Computers have been "more intelligent" than humans for a long time now if it simply means arithmetic and recalling trivia. Now, noting that, isn't it possible that such wisdom is dependent on dependent on the will, the soul, etc? So we arrive back at the true point of contention - you are a materialist. I claim that materialism has been handily refuted for thousands of years. Then you fell back on pretty much every freshman level fallacy in the book. On the other hand, I suspect some of your misrepresenting of "classical" philosophy was not intentional, and just the result of getting most of it second hand from the Kurzweil (AI) and Dawkins (geocentrism) type literature. It is wise not to be so dismissive of pre-"Enlightenment" thinking.