Argument from incredulity? Really?
It's a genuine philosophical position, and one with a long tradition in the reductionist philosophy of mind. If you don't believe that a coin (or to use the more typical example, a thermostat) can have epsilon consciousness, then where do you draw the line? What does a conscious system have to have that, if you were to take it away the system would suddenly become inert and without a subjective experience of existence?
Positing that all things - all! - are conscious to varying degrees dependent on their informational complexity and structural pattern is an attempt to dissolve the mysterious question of what grants us awareness in the first place.
That conception certainly makes the AGI problem really easy. I'll solve it right now. Get a machine vision/olfaction etc system that recognizes structural complexity classes, does computational complexity efficiciency optimisation stuff, depends on the structural complexity class stuff for activity detection, once it has activity detection model game complexity and you're done - it can know process the entire computable universe including people.
Further assumptions:
..”problem solving" is largely, perhaps entirely, a matter of appropriate selection. T
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2013/11/singularity-or-bust-.html
I've never heard of this before, and have only watched 7 minutes so far, but I'd imagine many people here would be interested in this video.