I stated that information resides in the brain, in the form of neurons. Our current understanding indicates that consciousness is related to the flow of information in the brain. This is not an assumption, this is strictly an observation. MRI systems are able to directly observe the electromagnetic signatures from living brains during interaction with the consciousness of the person. The reason I harp on this point is because I try very hard not to make assumptions. I know that consciousness exists, because I am aware of my own consciousness. I know that brains exist, because I have seen them first hand. I know that there is a direct correlation between interacting with another person visually, verbally, and through other sensory mechanisms, and the pattern of electrical activity in that person's brain, because I have seen MRI demonstrations. These are all first hand observations of my own. I have read through mathematical papers on quantum mechanics. I make no claim as to unilaterally understand quantum mechanics, but I can follow the math and determine that it "works". I have read research into the composition of neurons, and the observations that lead the researchers to the conclusion that electrons are in a hyperpositional state within the neurons. My point was that this set of conditions suggests that consciousness may be non-deterministic in nature. Any Turing machine can, hypothetically if not practically, be replicated using strictly mechanical rod-logic that is exactly deterministic in nature. Therefore, while it is entirely likely that a Turing machine will be capable of simulating a conscious response well enough to interact with and fool an observer, this will not be the same as generating a consciousness, if indeed it turns out there is a non-deterministic computational component required.

If we think that consciousness exists, doesn't it? Or, in other words, I think I think, I think therefore I am, I think. We aren't really unsure about consciousness. If it didn't exist, we wouldn't know to make the argument that it may or may not exist. Instead, we may be ignorant about the physical properties of consciousness.

I don't see anything in my post that appears to make that assumption. In fact, my supposition is that we do need to learn more about the mechanics of non-deterministic computation in order to achieve either goal. How does my post demonstrate an assumption that I know what consciousness is?

I think it will be possible, but it's going to take a better understanding of the quantum state of neurons to implement. There is evidence that neurons operate using electrons in a hyperpositional state, meaning that it is entirely possible what we think of as information in the brain only exists as it interacts with the world. Even developing a non-biological conciousness, at least as we currently understand what that means, will likely require some form of non-deterministic computation. In the nearer term, developing more and more sophisticated simulations that can, ultimately, fool the user/observer into thinking that they are conscious is a much more straightforward goal.