Hi Dick,

>>>All of your arguments are entirely based on the religious conviction that your feelings about what is going on are correct: that your mental model of the phenomena is valid. Nothing you say is backed by any kind of logically derived arguments.>You apparently completely missed the essence of my comment in "Just Who Is Aware Here?". You gave an argument as to why computers can't really think, "The Chinese Room Thought Experiment", without comprehending that the argument works just as well against the idea that you are aware as it does against the idea that computers are aware.>Your words, "It's not actually thinking. Its internal states and processes, being purely syntactic, lack semantics (meaning); so, it doesn't really have intentional (i.e., meaningful) mental states." Now prove to me you have any intentional (i.e., meaningful) mental states!>>H: There is at no point in the algorithm a realization process where the whole program understands the meaning D: Here you appear to be defining "realization" in terms of two terms of doubtful clarity! You need to tell us exactly what you mean by "realization" before anyone can check the logical accuracy of your purported fact! I commented on "understanding" above and "meaning" definitely needs clarification.