> It's a nice theory, but there's nothing to substantively back up any of these points
Of course there is.
1. All of physics is computable, and dualistic theories of mind are far more problematic than monistic ones. Also, computational minds are consistent with all of our scientific knowledge, and require no further ontological commitments; not true of other theories of mind.
2. That evolution favours less computation, all else being equal, follows trivially from natural selection. Using more computation than is needed requires more food, which would not compete well against mutations that are more efficient.
3. Finding a fundamental frequency is adaptive for identification of predators, prey and allies.
4. Well defined frequency separation does make the problem of separating frequencies easier. It's practically tautological.
5. This is the only thing requiring additional empirical support.
Hypothesis is different from evidence. Your arguments roughly address the phrasing of my summary but don't back the full scope author's actual conjectures.
1, for instance, is not philosophical. He's literally carrying the metaphor down to additions and multiplications of waveform samples. There's no evidence that this is mechanistically similar to how our brain thinks, nor is there evidence that "easy" problems of addition are easy problems of our mind.
2 is an argument of strong evolutionary force... strong enough to overcome the fact that my emotional reactions to harmony will change my behavior, despite them not being a good signal of how to survive
And the rest is pure conjecture. I'm not saying it's a bad hypothesis. It's just not anything beyond hypothesis.
Of course there is.
1. All of physics is computable, and dualistic theories of mind are far more problematic than monistic ones. Also, computational minds are consistent with all of our scientific knowledge, and require no further ontological commitments; not true of other theories of mind.
2. That evolution favours less computation, all else being equal, follows trivially from natural selection. Using more computation than is needed requires more food, which would not compete well against mutations that are more efficient.
3. Finding a fundamental frequency is adaptive for identification of predators, prey and allies.
4. Well defined frequency separation does make the problem of separating frequencies easier. It's practically tautological.
5. This is the only thing requiring additional empirical support.