While I agree with parts of this, there are others that I can't resist critiquing:
> 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.
--
> The only thing there is is our brains. You just think that since the brain is doing computations and the brain is conscious, therefore consciousness is a computation.
I think we have to be very careful when we are using consciousness itself to contemplate consciousness. In this case, what you are referring to is not the mind and consciousness themselves, but rather your ~conscious (subconscious + conscious) model of them.
It is certainly possible that "all there is is the brain", but this is not known - absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, but it is not proof of absence. You (or more precisely, your consciousness, and that of many other consciousnesses, which affect yours and your model of reality) think that what you say is true, but it is currently speculative, necessarily.
> 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.
--
> The only thing there is is our brains. You just think that since the brain is doing computations and the brain is conscious, therefore consciousness is a computation.
I think we have to be very careful when we are using consciousness itself to contemplate consciousness. In this case, what you are referring to is not the mind and consciousness themselves, but rather your ~conscious (subconscious + conscious) model of them.
It is certainly possible that "all there is is the brain", but this is not known - absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, but it is not proof of absence. You (or more precisely, your consciousness, and that of many other consciousnesses, which affect yours and your model of reality) think that what you say is true, but it is currently speculative, necessarily.