> cynical () positions on some controversial questions.

I feel "cynical" is an inappropriate word here.

We may have to, for the same (ecumenical) reasons that thinkers like Churchland, Hofstadter, Dennet, Penrose and company have all struggled with, eventually accept the impossibility of proof of (existence or non-existence) on any hypothesis of "machine mind". The pragmatic response is, "does it offer utility for me?". And that's all that can be said. Anyone's choice to accept or reject ideas of machine intelligence will remain inviolably personal and beyond appeal to "proof" or argument. I think that's something we'd better get used to sooner rather than later, in order to avoid a whole lot or partisan misery and wasted breath.