It’s silly because it’s obvious. If you understand cells, you understand that computation in the absence of subjectivity has been happening on Earth for billions of years.
> I showed you that subjectivity doesn’t effect whether computation occurs.
You didn't "show" it; you simply asserted it. You also made a number of appeals to (uncited) authority concerning the nature of computers.
You made an argument from cells; I presume that was to do with the way that DNA and so on works. Although not all cells have DNA...
Anyway. I concede that was an argument, and not a bald assertion. But it's a circular argument; if your definition of "computer" includes the operation of DNA, then the conclusion that a computer can exist without interpretation or intent is unavoidable. You're definition begs the question.
> Please imagine that my response is "I said good day sir!"
That sounds a lot like "Anyway, why do I think I have time for this ... "
It's clear to me that "stuff" can be arranged to work as a Turing Machine (or some other kind of computer) without design or intent. Whether it is such a thing or not depends on how it is used; a Turing Machine that is given random inputs, or whose outputs don't mean anything to anyone, is a computer only in a formal sense. If nobody knows that some thing is a computer, I'm not sure that it's computer-ness is meaningful.
So that's why I think intent and interpretation are relevant.
I showed you that subjectivity doesn’t effect whether computation occurs. Several ways.
If you disagree you should really be editing Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_computation Why don’t you go add your theory there?
It’s silly because it’s obvious. If you understand cells, you understand that computation in the absence of subjectivity has been happening on Earth for billions of years.
(Mic drop)