Fair enough in this particular case because they’re using it ontologically, but in general, you kinda gotta define terms if you want to engage in scientific discourse. Computation (and the corresponding synthesis, calculation) are slippery to be sure, but I didn’t even notice the definition it was so uncontroversial. It’s nothing like defining “person” or “consciousness” or “ego” up top, which is just as necessary (if you insist on using them) but about 100x more futile!