@keithwilson The good parts of paper, main principles and discussion of them, are surrounded with some pretty questionable philosophical and theretiical concepts.

One major problem is that the author confuses cognition in general with consciousness. He need not bring the notion of consciousness into the argument at all. Puzzling why he makes that category error. (1/2)

@keithwilson Sorry, I should have prefaced and clarified my comment. The article is great, and a much needed statement identifying factors that show how information processing in the brain is not like that in digital computers.

My comment that it has been debunked, instead, should have said, in the recent decade or so, cognitive neuro scientists have begun to debunk the digital computer analogy by showing factors that go beyond step-by-step, symbolic, algorithmic, digital style computation.

@keithwilson Yes, but the symbolic perspective has been debunked for a while, tho some of the old crowd (pre-neuroscience perspective e.g. Gary Marcus) still thinks that way.

“discrete neural events and continuous physical processes form a tightly coupled system that cannot be reduced to symbolic information processing”