There might be or there mightn't be -- your argument doesn't help us figure out either way. By its source code, I mean something that can simulate your mind's activity.
Exactly. It's moments like this where Daniel Dennett has it exactly right that people run up against the limits of their own failures of imagination. And they treat those failures like foundational axioms, and reason from them. Or, in his words, they mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity. So when challenged to consider that, say, code problems may well be equivalent to brain problems, the response will be a mere expression of incredulity rather than an argument with any conceptual foundation.
And it is also true to say that you are running into the limits of your imagination by saying that a brain can be simulated by software : you are falling back to the closest model we have : discrete math/computers, and are failing to imagine a computational mechanism involved in the operation of a brain that is not possible with a traditional computer.
The point is we currently have very little understanding of what gives rise to consciousness, so what is the point of all this pontificating and grand standing. Its silly. We've no idea what we are talking about at present.
Clearly, our state of the art models of nueral-like computation do not really simulate consciousness at all, so why is the default assumption that they could if we get better at making them? The burden of evidence is on conputational models to prove they can produce a consciousness model, not the other way around.
