I should have perhaps left the word "qualia" out of my summary, as Searle does not use it in his paper. (There are different concepts of qualia available, some

I should have perhaps left the word "qualia" out of my summary, as Searle does not use it in his paper. (There are different concepts of qualia available, some of which are complex and dubious, and those complications can be left out by avoiding the word.) To use his terminology to summarize the point of his argument: there is a logical difference between syntax and semantics. Importantly, contrary to popular view, he was not trying to argue that building a "thinking machine" was not possible or that an instantiation of a computer program could not think; au contraire, he explicitly said it was possible to build a "thinking machine" and that some instantiations of computer programs could think.