In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind
What is computation?
The question of when a physical system is computing is fundamentally a question about the relationship of abstract mathematical/logical entities to physical ones A ‘computation’ is a mathematical abstraction described in one of the logical formalisms developed by theoretical computer scientists. A ‘computer’ is a physical system with actual constituent parts and its own internal interactions that take it from one physical state to another. The computer is taken to stand in a certain relation to the computation—if we can formulate this relation, then we can answer our question of when a physical system is performing computation. To act as a computer is always to be performing a specific computation, we therefore need to ask: when is this physical system performing that (not always known) computation, and what is the relation required between the physical system and the abstract computation that this can be determined?
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2014.0182
If your version of computationalism believes “abstract mathematical/logical entities” are consciousness, then it would be non-physicalist. It would be little different from a soul inhabiting something physical.
On the other hand, if your version of computationalism believes only the physical entities implementing the abstract mathematical entities are consciousness then it is would be physical theory but it would allow any type of matter able to create the correct relationship to be conscious. That would mean likely any form of solid matter, maybe liquids and gases too, could be conscious. In other words, it would be a variant of panpsychism.
Broad Speculations 
Donkey Kong is computation therefore every computation is Donkey Kong; Pan-Donkey-Kong-ness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It isn’t any computation. It is whatever the theory purports to be the computation for consciousness – or assuming there may be multiple, whatever computation that falls into family or class of computation that result in consciousness.
We could do the computations on any medium, even shaped granite blocks for example, and voila we would have consciousness. It isn’t beyond the range of possibility that some simple computations might fall into the family. Some granite slab, your kitchen counter perhaps, may already be performing the minimal computation on a time frame of thousands of years.
Something to think about the next time you wipe down the counter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right, it not being just any computation was my point. Pancomputationalism doesn’t necessarily mean panpsychism.
Of course, there are two types of pancomputationalism, limited and unlimited. The limited one says every physical system does computation, but only specific computations. The unlimited says every physical system performs every computation. Unlimited does imply a form of panpsychism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computation-physicalsystems/#EvePhySysCom
My take is unlimited leans heavily on the fact that we can always choose to interpret a particular system as performing a particular computation. But that can require an interpretation that is more computationally sophisticated than the system in question, raising the question of whether the interpretation is the real implementation and is just blaming it on the kitchen counter (or whatever).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hence, my statement “it would be a variant of panpsychism”
It makes zero sense to me that we could produce consciousness, for example, by moving counters on an abacus even in the limited scenario. I would think the unlimited version would make the universe conscious which also seems unsupported.
If we actually can’t figure out when a system is computing or what it is computing, then we are just replacing one mystery with another. Computationalism would be so ill defined that it would be useless.
There’s also the question of what constitutes a “system” in any of these scenarios.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We certainly aren’t going to do it with just one abacus. But billions operating across centuries? It comes down to how you intuitively react to the Chinese room.
The philosophy of computation isn’t always straightforward. (Is the philosophy of anything straightforward?) But I think recognizing the mind as computation definitely improves the situation. It does mean accepting a mechanistic account of us, which will always be contentious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have no problem with the more general concept of information processing being involved in consciousness. It is when consciousness becomes “only” or “solely” computation that I think the idea is ridiculous, especially if the philosophy of computation is as problematic as the philosophy of consciousness.
The paper I referenced and a number of others seem to be attempting to define computation . From the paper I referenced:
” There has been, however, no consensus on how to tell if a given physical system is acting as a computer or not; leading to confusion over novel computational devices, and even claims that every physical event is a computation. In this paper, we introduce a formal framework that can be used to determine whether a physical system is performing a computation. We demonstrate how the abstract computational level interacts with the physical device level, in comparison with the use of mathematical models in experimental science. This powerful formulation allows a precise description of experiments, technology, computation and simulation, giving our central conclusion: physical computing is the use of a physical system to predict the outcome of an abstract evolution.”
Any “every physical event is a computation” or, for that matter, “everything is mind,” all fail into the problem:
if everything is X, then nothing is X.
Schrodinger, I think, in What is life? suggested DNA might be a crystal. And, he was right to a large degree. It is information encoded in physical (geometric?) structure in a very complex molecule, in effect a quasiperiodic crystal. I think consciousness may be like a crystal too but in a different way than DNA is one.
As best I can tell, computation as it is normally conceived is time independent. I can do an extremely complex computation on a supercomputer in 1 second or on an abacus in 200 years but it is the same computation. Consciousness must be like a crystal with time as part of its dimensions. That is exactly what it would have to be if representation of spacetime is its core feature. Time would need to enter the picture at some point.
Some people are doing research on what are called dynamic crystals. I don’t begin to understand that, but apparently some are attempting to produce this type of crystal.
From a page of one of the physicists doing work in the area:
“Dynamic crystal’ generalizes the standard concept of crystal to the dynamic case. Dynamic crystal exhibits the general intertwined space-time periodicities in D+1 dimensions, including both the static crystal and the Floquet crystal as special cases [Ref. 1] . In general, the space-time primitive unit cell is not a direct product between spatial and temporal domains. In the most general case, there may not even exist spatial translational symmetry at any given time, nor temporal translational symmetry at any spatial location.”
https://wucj.physics.ucsd.edu/research/dyn/spacetime.html
I don’t begin to understand that, but apparently some are attempting to produce this type of crystal.
“The anticipated shift in the focal point of interest of solid-state chemists, crystal engineers, and crystallographers from structure to properties to function parallels the need to apply our accumulated understanding of the intricacies of crystal structure to explaining the related properties, with the ultimate goal of harnessing that knowledge in applications that require soft, lightweight, or biocompatible organic solids. In these developments, the adaptive molecular crystals warrant particular attention as an alternative choice of materials for light, flexible, and environmentally benign devices, primarily memories, capacitors, sensors, and actuators. ”
“United under the umbrella term crystal adaptronics, the recent research efforts aim to realistically assess the appositeness of dynamic crystals for applications that require fast, reversible, and continuous operation over prolonged periods of time.”
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.0c05440
soft, lightweight, or biocompatible organic solids
fast, reversible, and continuous operation over prolonged periods of time
And here:
“The development of molecular materials whose physical properties can be controlled by external stimuli — such as light, electric field, temperature, and pressure — has recently attracted much attention owing to their potential applications in molecular devices. There are a number of ways to alter the physical properties of crystalline materials. These include the modulation of the spin and redox states of the crystal’s components, or the incorporation within the crystalline lattice of tunable molecules that exhibit stimuli-induced changes in their molecular structure. A switching behaviour can also be induced by changing the molecular orientation of the crystal’s components, even in cases where the overall molecular structure is not affected. Controlling intermolecular interactions within a molecular material is also an effective tool to modulate its physical properties.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nchem.2547
controlled by external stimuli — such as light, electric field, temperature, and pressure
stimuli-induced changes in their molecular structure. A switching behaviour can also be induced by changing the molecular orientation of the crystal’s components, even in cases where the overall molecular structure is not affected.
LikeLiked by 1 person