[stormbrew]

> The assertion that you cannot get there from computation implies there is a currently non understood yet essential piece of physics(I assume, but I do not know) which doesn't fall under "computation"

This conflates "computation" with "physics". I think even the OP doesn't do that, since it allows for the possibility that non-computational physical processes could lead to consciousness, even derived from computational efforts.

To me this is the crux of the problem with that argument, though. The definition of "computation" here seems to be designed to get to this answer. It includes all physical processes that are not like consciousness and excludes all physical processes that are like consciousness, and on top of that presumes that humans consciousness isn't "deterministic", which to me is a difficult proposition to prove since human brains are never not being bombarded with stimuli, so creating two "runs" of the same brain is essentially impossible.

Like trying to add 1+1 on a computer that's sitting in a big burst of cosmic rays twice.

[epgui]

Just for clarity, I consider to be “computation” any physical process which involves information.

[stormbrew]

Right, I meant the article's idea of computation, not yours. Should have said TFA instead of OP.