[astrophysician]

> The burden of proof is on those claiming minds and computers are the same thing.

I never understand this argument. IMHO the rest of your argument seems to obfuscate something rather simple... your brain is a physical object. The atoms that make up the neurons, glial cells, etc. are real and are governed by physics. Are you saying that what you think of as "you" is made up of more than these physical ingredients? To me that would be invoking something "magical" and would thus bear the burden of proof.

> You can have concrete green triangular objects in the world, but not triangularity or green as such...except in a mind that is able to abstract universals from particulars

Why can a sufficiently powerful computer not conceptualize these things? How is that fundamentally different than what goes on in your brain?