The way your question is posed is fine as it seems you are looking for the logical flaw (if any) in an argument, rather than arguing the existence of auras which I think few people actually believe in. I didn't downvote, but I didn't upvote either because I think the question is really way too broad and a bit convoluted the way it's asked (your last assumption "Machines appear to be..." itself is vague to me. We are or we aren't, the use of the term "appear to be" is a confusing choice. But that's neither here nor there).
The main thing is that your assumptions in a nutshell can be summed up as "physicalism is false" and then your question is, "How can physicalism be false?"
To answer your question completely, I'd have to explain the multitude of reasons why I think physicalism is true (of which there are many), which is really asking too much here. We are looking for slightly more targeted questions, that's all. :)
So it's not off-topic, but I did have a mind to close it because it's so broad, but it was borderline for me and it already had an accepted answer so I didn't press the matter. If you still have a question, I would try to narrow it down a bit. Read up on some of the many various physicalist positions on SEP / Wikipedia and see if any of those inadvertently answer any confusion you may have about it first, then come to us with specific questions you may have which arise from that. :)
