So, then, how is my reduction flawed? (Oh, there are probably holes in it... But I suspect it contains a kernel of the truth.)

You know, we haven't had a true blue, self-proclaimed mystic here in a while. It's kind of an honor. Here's the red carpet: [I originally posted a huge number of links to Eliezer's posts, but the filter thought they're spam. So I'll just name the articles. You can find them through Google.] Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions Excluding the Supernatural Trust in Math Explain/Worship/Ignore? Mind Projection Fallacy Wrong Questions Righting a Wrong Question

I have read the Chinese Room paper and concluded that it is a POS. Searle runs around, points at things that are obviously intelligent, asks "it that intelligence?", and then answers, matter of factly, "no, it isn't". Bah.

What Searle's argument amounts to

The Turing test is not claimed as a necessary precondition for consciousness, but a sufficient one.

"You guys are the ones who want to plug this damned thing in and see what it does."

That's just plain false. Eliezer dedicated his life to making this not so.