>Prove me conscious, and I'll start taking you seriously.

You realise, this is the same fallacy?

You've shifted the burden of proof on to some bizarre philosophical ground so that you dont have to defend your trick magic box.

A priori, by common sense, you're conscious. A priori, by common sense, a machine is not. There lie the default burdens of proof. From this the sales person must proceed to convince me, not vice versa.

I don't know what's in the box. You don't know what's in the box. Yet you say it can't possibly be this - so prove it. It's really simple.

I don't have to defend the box. I defend the right to say that we don't know in the absence of facts. Common sense isn't facts, nor is it a priori.