Ok, I think I can follow some of the points you are making. When I said I think you were being pedantic I meant you were taking the discussion to a meta level w

Ok, I think I can follow some of the points you are making. When I said I think you were being pedantic I meant you were taking the discussion to a meta level which is sort of beyond the scope of the interview. If you say we have to have a discussion about the nature of consciousness before we can talk about whether a function matches a reality then you have sort of put the cart before the horse, don't you think? I mean the whole purpose of mathematics is that we can talk about phenomenons in nature (such as consciousness) on a mutually agreed basis - if you take that basis away, I doubt there is very much left to talk about...