Oh, all right. I'm bored and suggestible.

1 - Both potentially meaningful

2 - That's a question about the meanings of words. I don't object to those constraints on the meanings of those words, though I don't feel strongly about them.

3 - If "qualia" is meaningful (see 1), then no.

4 - N/A

5 - Ugh. "Any required degree" is damningly vague. Labeling confidence levels as follows:

• C1 that it's in-principle-possible to build as good a simulation of a particular human as any other human is.
• C2 that it's ipp to build a good enough simulation of a human that no currently existing test could reliably tell it apart from the original.
• C3 that it's ipp to build one that could pass an "interview test" (a la Turing) with the most knowledgeable currently available judges.

...I'd say C1 > C2 > C3 > 99%, though C2 would require also implementing the computer in neurons in a cloned body.

5a - Depends on the required level of accuracy: ~0% for a stone statue, for example. For any of the above examples, I'd expect it to do so as much as the original does.

5b - Not in the sense you mean.

6 - I am not sure that question makes sense. If it does, accurate priors are beyond me. For lack of anything better, I go with a universal prior of 50%.

7 - Mostly that's a question about definitions... if it doesn't explain consciousness, is it really a Theory of Everything? But given what I think you mean by ToE: 99+%.

8 - Question about definitions. I'm willing to constrain my definition of "real" that way, for the sake of discussion.

9 - I have no idea and am not convinced the questions make sense, x4.

10 - x5.

11 - Not entirely, though it is a regular student at a nonsensei-run dojo.