If I had to do it over, I think I would shrink the rest of the piece, and expand the last section. (Maybe I still can, it is not paper after all). Anyway, than

If I had to do it over, I think I would shrink the rest of the piece, and expand the last section. (Maybe I still can, it is not paper after all). Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful feedback. I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you say, but here are a few responses: 1. For what it is worth, I think consciousness might be an emergent property of machines, but not of the sorts of machines we currently have. That is to say, I don't think symbolic logic or machine learning are those sorts of machines. 2. Why do you dislike casting statistical and symbolic machines against each other? (Because this is the internet: serious question.) alluding to your note (1) 3. I am aware of some of the original criticisms of Searle's Chinese room, but I am not sure what you are alluding to here (in your note 2). 4. You make a fair point about defining desire, wants and so forth. This is quite a departure from many of the other points that question the need for desires or wants. I would be very curious as to how you believe that would add an important dimension here. (again, because of the internet, serious question.) Thanks again for reading it and taking the time to comment.