welldefined

Do you believe a perfect simulation of a human mind would result in something with an identical behavior to that of the person whose mind we're simulating? yes or no.

If yes, do you disagree that both are conscious? If you do, then you're contradicting the assumption in the question (that identical behavior implies identical properties). If no, then, again, you're contradicting the assumption in the question. You think consciousness is not determined by behavior. Ok, then what determines whether or not something is conscious?

Humans exhibit "intelligence". Humans exist in the physical world. There is some physical process which produces "intelligence". A priori, there is no reason to believe this process cannot be understood, engineered, and re-implemented (whether it be in silicon or in a biological way).

Your argument could have been made for every piece of technology before it existed. Here's what scientists, engineers, and mathematicians do: they either keep trying, or they find a reason why it's impossible.

1. Do we have to engineer how much it's being rewarded in each game?

2. What happens in the infinite case? With pacman, there are always a finite number of choices at each state.

3. If it doesn't have to be told the rules, then how does it make decisions? In theory, it may be able to learn how to play jeopardy, but it may be way too inefficient in practice. Humans don't even start with a blank state.

4. I don't think I ever consciously apply philosophical principles like ockham's razor when I problem solve or learn. It makes me a little uncomfortable that we're starting with a philosophy, rather than having the system discover things itself. I would be ok with it if there was some parallel between ockham's razor and physics (not the methodology of science).