arXiv q-bio.NC: From Maps to Metabolism: Historical Precedents and a Unified Critique of Computationalism

arXiv q-bio.NC: From Maps to Metabolism: Historical Precedents and a Unified Critique of Computationalism

Authors J. Mark Bishop and Slawomir J. Nasuto argue that consciousness depends on intrinsically organized, metabolically grounded physical dynamics, not abstract computation alone. They place this view alongside earlier critiques of computationalism, from Korzybski’s map-territory distinction to Searle’s critique of strong artificial intelligence. Their central objection is that even mechanistic computationalism—under which computation belongs to physically realized mechanisms—does not remove the abstraction fallacy. Computational attributions still depend on choices of state individuation, system boundaries, and interpretive mapping, which the authors say are not determined by physical facts alone. They argue that grounding computation in neural mechanisms does not confer intrinsic significance or normativity. Their alternative is non-computational physicalism: consciousness depends on intrinsically organized, metabolically grounded physical dynamics. They leave open the possibility of artificial consciousness. The abstraction fallacy persists, they argue, wherever computational descriptions are treated as constitutive of, rather than descriptive of, physical reality.

Publication: 5671f125-f7af-4ce1-8a59-75b5c41c7328

attribution — pass: The reading correctly attributes the paper and its arguments to J. Mark Bishop and Slawomir J. Nasuto, and it keeps the claims as their arguments. The cited earlier thinkers match the abstract.

Authors:J. Mark Bishop, Slawomir J. Nasuto

summary — uncertain: The reading is faithful but hard for a non-specialist to follow. It never says the abstraction fallacy is Alexander Lerchner's term, or that it means confusing physical processes with abstract descriptions. Computationalism, state individuation, normativity and intrinsic significance are also left unexplained. The central thesis is stated twice, and the paper's framing as a reply to Lerchner is missing. Smallest repair: add one sentence crediting Lerchner and defining the fallacy, plus term-library tooltips for the other terms. Calling the mechanistic-computationalism point the authors' 'central objection' also blurs that it answers an anticipated objection to their critique.

argues that computational functionalism confuses physical processes with abstract descriptions, and that symbolic computation alone cannot instantiate consciousness

date — pass: The originalPublished date of 2026-10-23 matches the v1 submission date. The feed date of 2026-11-06 is correctly not used.

[Submitted on 23 Oct 2026]

support — pass: Each claim is directly supported by a verbatim abstract excerpt. The question follows from a gap the abstract leaves open and does not assert a conclusion. The limitations correctly note that only the abstract was reviewed. No unsupported benefits, costs or forecasts are introduced.

Computational attributions remain dependent upon choices of state individuation, system boundaries, and interpretive mapping that are not determined by physical facts alone.

media — pass: The selected media is the verified arXiv abstract page for this paper, which is the direct original source.