Hi Stathis I don't agree that a swap would solve the problem. It seems to me that we need a new statement for the camp - some sort of general functionalism. The current camp statement seems to me to amount to computational functionalism which is incompatible with biological naturalism.

Yes, I agree there is a problem. My proposal would have been to swap "Computational Functionalism", which a general statement and describes the controversy you address, with "Consciousness Arises From Any Equivalent Functional Organisation", which takes a specific stance, so that the more general is the parent of the more specific, which would have included your original topic about the role of pipes. Stathis

I have noticed that my "Pipes speculation wrong" sub camp is actually incompatible with its parent camp since the parent camp specifically states that pipes could be conscious. As i understand canonizer, this is problematic as sub camps are supposed to be refinements of parent camps and compatible with them. I'm thinking of proposing that the "Consciousness Arises From Any Equivalent Functional Organization" camp statement be moved to the computational functionalism sub camp. The new camp statement would be a more general statement inclusive of both sub-camps. What do people think?