Computational Functionalism Debate

About This Debate

Under some theories of phenomenal consciousness, complex algorithms running on a modern digital computer would give rise to a conscious entity capable of complex experiences, where the nature of that entity and its experience is wholly defined by the algorithm. Under other theories, they would not. At present, there is significant scientific and philosophical uncertainty about whether this is possible and what, if any, conscious minds might be possible even in the most advanced AI systems today.

The assumption that this type of digital mind is possible is a narrow form of physicalist computational functionalism. This webpage assembles short summaries of arguments for and against this specific position (called 'CF' here for convenience).

Arguments are presented as concisely and neutrally as possible, grouping similar types of argument together. The summaries are written to be self-contained, but never do full arguments justice. Links for further reading are provided where available for those wanting more detail. Inclusion of an argument does not mean it provides fatal evidence against or compelling evidence for CF. Some arguments are stronger than others while some are easily defeated, so the total number of arguments against or in support of CF does not reflect the overall strength of either position. Typically, there are various responses to any argument, at least if certain consequences are accepted.

Key arguments are our selection of the most influential arguments in the CF debate, representing both the strongest challenges to and defenses of the theory. These arguments are frequently cited by experts as central to their positions. Get in touch (or tag @chris_percy in relevant posts on X) to share your thoughts on which arguments you think are strongest.

If you are inclined to either support or reject CF, this website provides a first pass for you to test the robustness of your position. You need to have a response to each argument in the relevant section (not just the easy ones). Your responses should be self-consistent within a broader worldview and be persuasive – at least to yourself. Some of these debates have been raging for centuries, so it's worth being open to the possibility that there are counter-arguments available to your responses, but that doesn't mean you couldn't overcome them. We suggest treating this webpage as part of your exploration of the topic, not the final step.