And no, you can't just refer to my definition as survival optimisation, because that wasn't my definition. You've cleverly managed to miss the most important bit, which was the computational bit. Also, I never said anything about optimisation. I said fitness enhancing computational ability. That doesn't mean it has to be optimally fitness enhancing. So all that stuff you said about survival optimisation is talking across my argument.
Unless you're suggesting that there's some aspect of consciousness other than computation (in which case a purely computational machine like a computer could never be conscious) then in this case the mechanism is the result. There's no conflation there. Consciousness is nothing more than a very complex computational process. That's why I chose my definition - because this was a debate about whether or not a machine could be conscious. I'm not really interested in arguing on a broader field. But either way - I've already agreed to accept your definition and move on, as long as we keep the mechanism of consciousness in mind. Why are you arguing about it when it's not important anymore?Conflating mechanism and result makes your definition weaker, not stronger.
The problem with this is that it is not a solution because it leaves you in an incorrect state at the end. All groupings of sand are not "nominally heaps" because they do not satisfy the definition of a heap. There is an alternative formulation of the paradox which might make this more apparent:
Is 1 grain of sand a heap of sand? (No, by definition of a heap)
If we add one, are 2 grains of sand a heap? No.
If we add one, are 3 grains of sand a heap? No.
.... (ad infinitum)
Therefore no matter how many grains of sand we add, we will never have a heap. Therefore, heaps don't exist.
You're begging the question. By nominally declaring all groupings of sand to be heaps, we change the definition of a heap. Go look up "nominally" in the dictionary. So to argue that groups of sand aren't nominally heaps because they don't satisfy the definition of a heap is to say that my definition of a heap is wrong because it isn't the correct definition of a heap. You're assuming your conclusion in your premises.
That's not functionally equivalent to my solution and you know it. It's functionally opposite to my solution. With my solution we end up with heaps existing. With that conclusion, we end up with no heaps existing. And, again, by arguing that I'm sacrificing correctness, you presuppose that you're right and I'm wrong, which begs the question.Your "solution" is functionally equivalent to agreeing that "heaps don't exist". But of course heaps exist so it is a non-solution. I understand what you're saying. But you're basically sacrificing correctness for convenience.
Finally, the analogy with water molecules isn't bogus. What's bogus is your choice of predicates. You should have chosen "is a heap" and "has a temperature". They're both binary contingencies and my argument is that both of them are true right down to collections of one item (in the case of heaps, one grain of sand; in the case of temperature, one molecule of water).
This argument we're having used to be a definitional debate, which means I couldn't have been wrong purely on the basis of my definition. My definition was the thing you're saying I was wrong about. If you reread my last post, you'll find I've accepted your definition: that is, I'm willing to concede that yours is more useful in this (conversational) theatre and that therefore I was wrong. We now seem to be arguing about whether I was wrong because I'm an idiot or whether I had some reasonable reason for using the wrong definition. That's not really an argument I'm interested in having.