Can you elaborate on when you say &quot;lookup tables can be Turing complete&quot; as opposed to just able to pass some given Turing test? I feel like there&#x27;s some conflation about what lookup table we&#x27;re talking about.<p>Also, my reading of that passage by Aaronson is very different from yours. I read it as him saying, these computer scientists have put forward a fairly serious and compelling set of arguments that the actual complexity class of the translator algorithm has philosophical importance. Meanwhile, the analytical philosophy response is just to say something hand-wavy about &quot;meaning.&quot;<p>I agree Aaronson&#x27;s not saying anything definitive (he is extremely conservative about making definitive claims, despite how hotly involved he becomes in the few cases when he <i>does</i> make definitive claims). But I don&#x27;t agree that he is framing it to raise questions about the validity of the CS rebuttal papers that he cites.