Consciousness is not computation

This is a really good write-up though there's lots of connective tissue missing.

The idea that computation is a whole-mind or whole-consciousness experience that describes everything the brain and mind does, is a little flawed. The mind is capable of mathematical calculation, as a certain function, but it is also capable of metaphor, visions, musical enjoyment and connection to an uncertain, true "whole" that is separate from mathematical certainty.

The idea that computation is substrate independent is missing a layer. The idea that you can run computation on any given mathematical computing device and produce the same 'level' of consciousness as a parallel for consciousness is a little flawed.

ADHD study on the brain has 'room for improvement' because the Executive Function theory relies on parts of the brain which does not exist inside mice and some people argue we should study monkey brains who have a similar biological componentry to humans. The consciousness monkeys and apes have, is commonly seen to be a higher level than mice, and the biological componentry supports that idea.

Different kinds of computing devices would support different levels of consciousness. A toaster could run DOOM levels of consciousness and a supercomputer could "host" the consciousness of a much higher being. The religious faiths differ on this view across denominations. Catholics argue that dogs do not go to heaven because they have a 'worldly consciousness' and man has a heavenly consciousness. Some other faiths argue that we differ from animals in degree, not by kind, and that dogs are saved for heaven. These ideas have parallel with the concept of differing levels of consciousness.

The article makes the idea that differing relative observers (Alice, Bob, ect) of the computing substrate (hot iron magnetic poles) could generate different consciousness simulations. This elevates the idea of second-order thinking, thoughts about thoughts to be the mediating factor in deciding where consciousness is observed, and that's not really clear consciousness functions like that. It also supposes that the differing subjectivity of consciousness is linked to relating differently to an identical computational underbelly, like a tribe accessing the same or instanced resource, which is not really clear for the nature of mind or consciousness.

Hot Iron magnetic poles and computation as an example of consciousness, works for a subset of certain mathematical conscious functions, but functions like language are yet to be seen as computationally generated. DNA works better as a natural examination of the language. Mathematics has strict rigid certainties that often mirror randomness, or repetitive natural processes, like simulated annealing and physical forces. DNA's genetic code is possibly the first place in nature where we have seen non-repetitive, mutating code that is as complex as a human language, mediated by natural forces. The concept of "intelligent design" stephen meyer, et al and the question as to how life came to be, has become a thrust of biological research alongside evolutionary theory. It has some great discussions and speculation about language that didn't come from humans or animals.

There is a lot of elegant connections to be made when the author opens the idea of a split-brain "two consciousness" in epileptic patients. The left-right brain split has existed forever in pop psychology and it has lacked a lot of detail. The effects of left and right hemisphere splits have been studied for a while now by people with lesions and psychological disorders and a lot of the literature and implications have been compiled by a GP (PCP in US English) into a book.

The left brain excels at mathematical certainty and computation and pulling apart ideas into abstract pieces and trying to assemble them together into more than the sum of the parts. The right brain is eternally uncertain, connected to a whole and can interpret metaphor, people's faces, the shape of objects and much more. The implications go deep and don't lend to easy summarizing yet, the book the Matter with Things by McGilchrist spends multiple chapters just going through scientific example after example from brain-damaged and psychologically ill people to show the ideas that apply to the respective hemispheres.

Defending the idea from McGilchrist that a mathematical computation, worldview or functionality, is mostly executed in the left-hemisphere and not the whole brain, we can maybe illuminate why philosophers take differing stances on the nature of consciousness.

The author's conclusion that we are left in apophatic or negative theology attempts at describing what God is or what consciousness is, by excluding what he is not, rules out the inherent ability we have to build a view or metaphor in our mind that internally coheres with our own thoughts, and then apply it in the world.

There are likely a lot more internally coherent arguments, visions, ideas, maps of God or consciousness that we can make in our a mind and some of them will correspond to the natural reality we live in. Scientific discovery by the greats has used this method for a very long time. We still have hunches and sudden inspiration from an uncertain source and generally process some ideas in non-logical, non-rational ways. These ideas are only, but often, proved true when applied in the world. The ancient Greeks frequently only really pursued or argued about ideas they had guessed at first, instead of ruling out everything it couldn't be and working within that tiny area. Apophatic thinking can be overly limiting in some cases.

You don't need to know all that much in order to achieve consciousness. Lets say that you have a program that you assume to be conscious. You run it for 1 second, and exactly record all its internal states and outputs. Now, you can find an interpretation of the iron bar that shows that the iron bar casually and deterministically went through those exact same states for a full 1 second. What is the difference between those two situations? Why would the program be conscious but the iron bar would not be?

I believe the argument is more about how loose our definition of computation is rather than trying to disprove any form of consciousness. If we can find a proper iron bar and an interpretation of internal state that exactly mimics a computer, why do we consider one a computer and one completely random? What is missing from our definition of computation?

What I am saying is that the universe is literally performing the computation.

What you're describing is humans' attempt at modelling this computation using simple formulas.

> Computation does not have anything essential to it that makes it different from other "atoms jumping around" other than it produces outputs that we find interesting.

This is not true. Computing is a system where the physical hardware (the computer) is following rules that are explicitly encoded in itself - you can analyze the system and discover where and how the program it is following is encoded (as we did with DNA).

In contrast, non-computational physical processes are following the laws of physics which are not encoded anywhere.

A simple way to test this difference is to check whether there is some way, at least in principle, to get the computer to perform a different computation. For a cell, we have successfully done this: change the DNA, and the output changes, without affecting the computer itself. With a system simply evolving according to physical laws there is no way to change its behavior.

At best, you can claim that the universe itself is a computer, and all fields/particles are the symbols that it is manipulating (the laws of physics being then part of the internal implementation, akin to microcode in a CPU).

Biological life is not a computational phenomenon. There's no reason very advanced computers couldn't make simulated life. OpenWorm is an example.

By the way I find it hilarious how confident you (and other philosophers) are about your conclusions despite them basically being thought experiments with zero evidence. Imagine if scientists did that!

Actually I guess string theory is an example of that.