We are far from knowing whether this is the case. So you can believe one extreme or the other (or something in between), but either way it's an article of faith, not an established fact.
If so, you're bringing in something that's purely a matter of faith as no evidence has ever been found of a soul (AFAIK).
If no soul then be it single-celled or human, we're back in the mechanistic world and one is, somehow, just a more elaborate version of the other.
Some people believe that when the machine becomes sufficiently complex, consciousness will emerge. Others don't. Either way, it's a matter of faith.
> We have no more evidence...arises from the operation of a purely mechanistic state machine than we have for the existence of a soul.
Evidence of a soul: 0%. Evidence of atoms: 99.999999999999999999% or higher.
(Who said anything about atoms? I didn't.)
Couldn't agree more, but that wasn't your original assertion, to wit first para of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24962220
> Who said anything about atoms? I didn't.
You: "...from the operation of a purely mechanistic state machine" So what's a 'purely mechanistic state machine' going to be made of if not atoms.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Note this one in particular:
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation
of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier
to criticize. Assume good faith.
The fact that we don't know what consciousness is doesn't mean we can't make reasonable guesses. Now, given that we understand both macroscopic and microscopic physics pretty well these days, there is only so much room for guessing and some guesses are much more reasonable than others.
Ultimately, "you do you" is as much resolution as can reasonably be expected, down such a rabbithole.