> I'm in the camp that the most likely outcome is that artificial neural networks can be conscious and have real experiences, but the toy networks we have today don't have nearly the right topology to achieve such states.

I'm in the camp that says this question is unanswerable. We know we individually are conscious because we experience it. We accept that other people are conscious because they are so similar to us and they say they are, so by Occam's Razor they aren't zombies and they aren't lying. We haven't proven they are conscious, but we accept it. It seems reasonable. But if our test is just that it seems reasonable, there will be no convincing someone that a very dissimilar thing isn't just lying or faking it.

We say some things are not conscious not because we have evidence of this, but because the test is whether we ourselves say "Yes, this is conscious."

Furthermore, we hold onto this distinction as important because it has ethical consequence. We can do what we want to things that aren't conscious, so it's important that as many things as possible not be conscious. Is that thing conscious? It depends. Does it taste good?

One more thing: we say we are unconscious under anesthesia or when we are asleep. Why? Because we don't don't have any memory of what it was like to be in these states. But this is a test of memory, not consciousness. I don't have memories from when I was one year old, but I'm fairly certain I was conscious then.