[Nevermark]

> Biological computationalism disagrees with substrate independence.

Don't leave me hanging, post citations! I welcome fringe theories when confident statements are followed by the conclusive evidence they imply. If that isn't possible, send chocolate.

But, yes, I can count. And I am comfortable with natural forms, all the way to asymptotic limits. However, I don't put up with uncomputable/undefinable reals. Are you not numeric?

[2snakes]

Um, functional computationalism is scifi, not physics in re consciousness. It assigns the same level of reality to written numeric patterns of a dog as to a real dog. And your self for that matter. How can you prove numbers exist physically?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976342...

“Fringe theory” is just a knee jerk authoritarianism for method in re knowledge claims.

Classical functionalism is only mainstream if one prioritizes abstract modeling over empirical brain science.

[Nevermark]

None of which addresses what happen when self-engineered cognitive forms adapt millions of times faster, than biologically evolving cognition.

I would be happy if you tried again and did have a point that was relevant to the practical impact.