The human mind is a substrate-independent computer program. If it was implemented in a non-biological substrate, it would keep its subjective experience.
This is conjecture. OP’s contrary statement was obviously overconfident, and they should probably think and read more on the topic. But the paper you linked to support your claim is ultimately just a more sophisticated set of appeals to intuition. You may find substrate-independence far more plausible than the alternative, but you haven’t given any good reason to hold it with the level of confidence you’re projecting here.
I think this is too absolute, at least for flawed humans as opposed to ideal rationalists. Some possible counterexamples:
The person talking to you is a skilled manipulator with potentially unfriendly goals
The idea is extremely distressing/depressing and you don’t feel psychologically safe engaging with it
The social cost of engaging with the idea outweighs the expected benefit of doing so
Certainly all three of those reasons can be misapplied; they are convenient excuses to protect one’s own flawed worldview, hang on to comforting delusions, or toe the line on politically charged issues. But sometimes doing those things really is better than the alternative.