Not sure there aren't 10 other "lines of discussion/disagreement" on this, but the one I think might be most salient is Davidson's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

Not sure there aren't 10 other "lines of discussion/disagreement" on this, but the one I think might be most salient is Davidson's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_monism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_monism (Davidson was a student of Quine who people here might know more from his work in logic/kitchy programs-that-print-themselves games than as the bigtime analytic philosophy Word & Object, naturalized epistemology type work). Note that using words like "function" and "mathematical" are more the biases of computer science/Penrose while philosophy of the mind & psychology has more typically used slightly different ideas of "attitudes" and "events" to guide the discussion. I don't think this really radically shifts many central disputes, except (which Penrose might view as a critical "except") for all the funny business quantum mechanics / quantum computation can potentially bring in and the (undisputed) physicality of our brains and (also undisputed) lack of understanding of many details of biological computation.