In a recent episode of Mind Matters News, guest host Pat Flynn welcomed Dr. Eric Holloway and Dr. Robert J. Marks to discuss the theory of computationalism — the view that the human mind is fundamentally a computer. While this view is popular in both philosophical and scientific circles, the guests agreed that it falls far short of explaining human consciousness.

What Is Computationalism?

As Holloway pointed out, computationalists don’t believe that the brain contains literal hardware like a PC. Rather, they think that the mind operates like a Turing Machine — a mathematical model for computation:

This theory asserts that all mental processes can, in principle, be simulated by computational algorithms. Yet, he stressed, this reductionist approach oversimplifies the rich complexity of mental life.

A Faith in Silicon

Dr. Marks sees computationalism as more of a faith than a science. He likened its proponents to religious believers who trust that consciousness can be uploaded, replicated in silicon, and even achieve immortality. Marks, a Christian, drew parallels between the faith of transhumanists and religious belief, arguing that computationalism is a secular substitute for theological hope. As he put it, “There is a God-shaped vacuum,”  and computationalism attempts to fill it.”

Internal Contradictions: Materialists Depend on Abstractions

Holloway drew attention to a striking contradiction between computationalism and materialism. While its proponents often identify as materialists, the theory itself is rooted in abstract mathematics. Because computations are not physical objects but formal structures, treating minds as computations effectively concedes that minds are immaterial. Thus, computationalists unintentionally undercut the materialist foundation they depend upon.

How metaphors have misled us

Philosophers like David Bentley Hart warn against redefining human minds by the machines we’ve built. Originally, we designed computers to emulate human thinking; now, we mistakenly view ourselves as computers.

This inversion ignores the inherently abstract nature of human thought. As Selmer Bringsjord has argued, concepts like infinity and mathematical truths cannot be generated by purely physical systems.

Gödel and the Limits of Formal Systems

Philosopher Kurt Gödel‘s Incompleteness Theorem further undermines computationalism. It proves that any formal system will contain true statements that it cannot prove:

Because human minds can comprehend such truths, they must exceed the capabilities of algorithmic systems. Holloway emphasized that the ability to grasp abstract and infinite concepts points to a non-computational aspect of mind.

Practical Consequences

Holloway also noted that these are not just academic questions. They have real-world implications. If minds cannot be reduced to computers, then AI will never replicate human cognition in full. Realizing this fact will affect how we approach education, governance, and economics. In today’s information economy, value is derived from genuinely new ideas — something only human minds can generate. Therefore, enhancing human creativity should be prioritized over attempting to automate it.