Well of course he's saying that the program can't run until someone presses the enter key.
Umm no, I am not claiming that one cannot run the program without pressing the key. Which is in a way true but has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Your metaphor has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I am saying that intentionality cannot be physical because matter lacks the ability to refer. For example, the ink pattern "on" does not refer to an on light.
See "symbol grounding problem".
You are obviously confusing the philosophical definition of "intentionality" ( that something refers to something else) with the common defintion (that I do a purposeful act).
Don't ignore Ginkgo, and pay attention to me, I'm easy to dismiss with my, calling a spade a spade, routine. Pay attention to Ginkgo, he's supplying his logical thought on the matter, as one that is familiar with Dennett's arguments.
While I know that anything is possible, that the universal physics allow, that is, I'm not one to believe in relatively new things, that seem to not fit within universal constraints. Sure it could be my/our ignorance, but I've already given you my beliefs on the subject, with a little, "in your face" thrown in, because I see that you throw some of that in as well. Sure it's a different flavor, but it's, "in your face," just the same. Or at least to my understanding it is.
It's probably just youthful exuberance, on your part, and if so, I apologize for not recognizing it for what it is, as surely it requires that I then make allowances. If everyone was extremely honest about themselves, it would be an easy thing to navigate through them.
If you keep it up, challenging me that is, I'll consider that you kinda like me, in all my scruffiness, and continue to supply you with my arguments, reiterated of course, because I hate to sound repetitious for too long, like someone I know. Hey you know him too!
So I'll state it this way, With all that we know about the human brain and psyche, that I'm aware of, I see the idea of qualia as redundant, as that of which you attribute as evidence for it's existence, I see as explainable with the "physical" truth of the human CNS. That the, so called, mind/body arguments are simply based upon ignorance of the mind.
If you think I've been picking on you, wrong! I've only ever picked on your argument, until I noticed you were supplying some, "in your face" tactics. To simply state something over and over again, as if it's fact, without exploring it's intricacies, is no argument at all.
Take Ginkgo serious, as I have found him to be an honest and thoughtful person, one worthy of such honest consideration.