Is algorithmic complexity a sufficient condition for consciousness?

Question

or is Searle actually right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Room

So, because many people think it won't work, it won't work?

If you simplify neuronal processes to the functions of a calculator, Searle's quandary follows. But the algorithms involved in biological systems are amazingly complex.

How is pinning a regress fair as an attack on functionalism, when it doesn't follow that simple machines have the same properties as the terrifically dynamic?

Answer 1

Since consciousness creates matter from energy, 'It' has a spiritual component, which is infinite, and therefore relatively incalculable.

Answer 2

Searle did not dispute whether algorithmic complexity can lead to consciousness, but whether AI (with tools and models at the time) can lead to intelligence.
Since then, most agree that algorithmic complexity does not equal intelligence, what is the reason why AI declined in the 90's. Instead of algorithms, the intention of AI moved to make systems (computers) that learn and use their knowledge.
So, the answer to your question is no. Algorithms never lead to intelligence nor consciousness, but learning.