  Brette (2019) criticizes the notion of neural coding because it seems to
entail that neural signals need to be decoded by or for some receiver in the
head. If that were so, then neural coding would indeed be homuncular (Brette
calls it dualistic), requiring an entity to decipher the code. But I think the
plea of Brett to think instead in terms of complex, interactive causal
throughput is preaching to the converted. Turing (not Shannon) has already
shown the way. In any case, the metaphor of neural coding has little to do with
the symbol grounding problem.
