Oh, dear.

Yes, of course … because, when looser, the ‘strings’ don’t inform her of the presence of prey.

There are limits to Functionalism and to push it any further really is a sign of the mind that is … perhaps not mediocre as such, but … not as clever as it likes to flatter itself — flights of fancy are all well and good and can, often, result in useful modes of thought, but … fly too close to the Sum and the wax melts.

It’s like Daniel Dennet and his ‘conversation’ with the anthill¹ : unfortunately, Dennet’s apophenia notwithstanding, reified anthropomorphism is not isomorphically interchangeable with the ants’ instinctive responses to the sugar/honey/whatever else he lays down to influence their behaviour … and the conversation one he is having with the voices in his own head, not the ‘mind’ of the anthill.

No, the web isn’t an externalised part of her brain … the looser threads are like putting our phones on ‘Do Not Disturb’: it isn’t that phones have become part of our brains … an extension of our ‘cognition’ … it’s that we don’t notice that someone wants our attention because, when set to not disturb us, they don’t draw attention in the first place — when she tightens the threads again, she’ll have taken the web off ‘Do Not Disturb’, that’s all.

Excellent piece though … and my critique is of that particular school of thinking per se rather than your own ².

—
¹ C.f. The Mind’s I.

² Your presenting it here is not necessarily indicative of your espousal of it.