[vidarh]

> You apparently don't understand how computers work.

You appears to like to jump to conclusions.

> There is no "meaning" associated with any variable or its value, and there cannot be.

Please give me a definition of "meaning" that can be applied to a human brain and not to a computer. And what is the evidence that it can not be applied to a computer?

You are also jumping to the conclusion that, if as you claim, the brain depends on something that can't be explained under the materialistic hypothesis, that a computer cannot, yet you have not even presented an argument for why that would be so.

[yc-kjh]

> Please give me a definition of "meaning" that can be applied to a human brain and not to a computer.

You associate a meaning to the symbol "dog". You think of an animal that barks, wags its tail, chases cats and squirrels, and is happy to see you when you get home. You associate something in the real world what that symbol. (That is the very meaning of doing semantics.)

The computer does nothing of the sort with the symbol "dog".

[vidarh]

Please provide a definition of "associate a meaning to the symbol" that can be applied to a human brain and not a computer.

The plain reading of what you've written above is so trivially simple to implement in a computer that it is covered in every introductory algorithm course, so I presume you have either given a definition of "meaning" that is overly simplistic, or have a definition of "associate a meaning" that is substantially more complicated than a plain reading of the words.

[ronaldx]

You just taught us Object Oriented Programming 101.

[judk]

I remember when I was a kid, imagining how the inventor of English taught everyone else... "'Dog' means-- wait. 'Means' means-- uh-oh."