So what if the room has a 100 billion people, each simulating a single neuron, passing messages to each other as if they were firings along axons. Searle's arg

So what if the room has a 100 billion people, each simulating a single neuron, passing messages to each other as if they were firings along axons. Searle's argument is that consciousness cannot arise from computation, and he makes his point by making the converse seem laughable. But I don't find it laughable - I find it plausible and intriguing. Searle offers no insight as to what consciousness is, but merely asserts that because his vision of computation cannot possibly create consciousness, then consciousness cannot be embodied in a machine.