all of these discussions eventually reveal themselves to be special framing of the old Parmenides question about determinism, whether we live in a block univers

all of these discussions eventually reveal themselves to be special framing of the old Parmenides question about determinism, whether we live in a block universe where choice and change are illusions, and thought and being are the same. I am increasingly convinced he is right, and that arguments such as the OP (and Searle-ism generally) present end up refuting not the existence of artificial intelligence, but intelligence itself. "Artificial" smuggles in naturalistic fallacy and privileges the dualism hypothesis.