On naturalism and consciousness

[FatAndFaithless]

Not "who", -what-, in comp theory (or at least my particular take on it). A "who" is unnecessary. Computation proceeds regardless.

That's ridiculous. The "meaning" is described at the level of architecture. It doesn't require any "knowing" or a "subject" , let alone a "knowing subject". The circuit "means" that the light comes on or off when the switch gets flipped - even if the flipper doesn't know how that occurs, and even if the mechanism arose by a process of which we are entirely ignorant (have no knowledge of). That light switch- will still mean what it means, and still do the work - even if there were no "knowing subjects" (humans, in this case) present -anywhere-.

The only requirement that switch has is energy. It's structural composition already grants it opportunity.

The only thing that is ridiculous is your assertion that a physical system, like a switch has meaning apart from a knowing subject. You say that when a light goes on and off that conveys meaning, but what meaning. The light could mean anything from "the bathroom is occupied" to "system overload". Your physical monist theory does not account for the difference between signs and significance.

(Spoiler: We're the ones who assign significance to signs.)