Materialism ends up denying the existence of any irreducible subjective qualitative states of sentience or awareness.

We often attribute 'understanding' and other cognitive predicates by metaphor and analogy to cars, adding machines, and other artifacts, but nothing is proved by such attributions.

Well, what does "good" mean anyway? As Wittgenstein suggested, "good," like "game," has a family of meanings. Prominent among them is this one: "meets the criteria or standards of assessment or evaluation."

How do we get from electrons to elections and from protons to presidents?

Where consciousness is concerned, the appearance is the reality.

Materialism ends up denying the existence of any irreducible subjective qualitative states of sentience or awareness.

The general nature of the speech act fallacy can be stated as follows, using "good" as our example. Calling something good is characteristically praising or commending or recommending it, etc. But it is a fallacy to infer from this that the meaning of "good" is explained by saying it is used to perform the act of commendation.