In some religions, such as the mystic strands of Hinduism, Gnosticism, and Sufism, there is a belief that we are in fact gods. But, even if we aren't that doesn't mean we can't create a mind... nor does the fact that a something is a machine mean it can't have a mind.

I've only started reading your article, but at the very start of it there is already a basic mistake. You write:

"Every one of you reading this (unless printed onto paper) are using a Turing Machine to do so."

A Turing Machine is a mathematical abstraction that can't actually exist in the physical world. Many of the programming languages we use today are Turing-Complete (also in an abstract sense), but that doesn't make them Turing Machines. Our computers aren't Turing Machines either.

You also write that "Turing didn't appear to understand that humans are not the total sum of their thoughts, but their actions" There's more to us than either of these. We have feelings and emotions, a variety of senses, memory, and we are embodied, and you could say "enworlded" (or "thrown in to the world" as some phenomenologists would have it). It could be argued that LLMs have all of these characteristics too, or at least we can't exclude the possibility that they do.

You write "A thinking machine could never give me an example of when it did wrong and saw the hurt in others. The machine could never choose, of its own will, to be observed by others and itself, to never do that action again."

I'm not sure why you are so convinced that a machine could never do this. I've already seen many examples of even just the relatively primitive LLMs we have now, like Anthropic's Claude and GPT4, apologize for saying something hurtful and promising not to do it again (which they avoid doing, within the limited context they're allowed within their programming). Even more sophisticated interactions along these lines don't seem out of reach.