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,

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.