We are no different than computers

[emjay]

It is, exactly, yes. 
(there -can be- subtle differences, there's room to move in CTM, but that paper expresses the core wonderfully.  I noticed that the author likes to propose alternatives to standard models - but notice that the standard models the author challenges are -also- computational models.  If I had to really pigeonhole the author, I'd say that it's a "classicist" approach, in that explicit gates are being referenced, rather than the ability of a net to emulate explicit gates and provide the function.  I think that this sort of approach offers more demonstrable examples of how a particular function can be achieved withouty reference to some "else" - however, I think that the explicit gate approach opens itself to an equally pressing question in it's attempt to explain features of mind - how could we have gotten explicit gates in there in the first place?  How does that work?  Eh?  Personally, I split the bay- I think that our brains are doing comp, but they are not doing it with explicit gates by design or by nature, the net is emulating the function of explicit gates.)

Cool, so we're on the same page 

I understand your concern about how explicit gates could have evolved, but I'm not sure I agree. The brain already goes through a development process in the first few years of life that is directed by genetics. And in that process the brain's infrastructure is built including guiding neurons to specific locations etc. So given that evolution is essentially about the mutation of genes, or is now, I don't see why DNA couldn't have mutated at some point in such a way as to lead that development process towards building an infrastructure that included explicit gates. Once it had done that and consciousness resulted, it would certainly have an evolutionary impetus to stay because one certain benefit of consciousness is the organism's fear of death and drive to do anything to prevent it. Anyway that was just a thought and my knowledge of genetics is sketchy so it could be totally wrong and obviously neither would I be assuming that consciousness just appeared in all it's complexity overnight as my simplification above suggests.

But your approach is appealing as well because if the gates are 'emulated' (and I presume by that you mean that in amongst the mass of neurons evolved for a different purpose, some of them happened be placed and connected in such a way as to act as logic gates?) then consciousness truly becomes an 'emergent' property perhaps almost guaranteed to exist in a neural network as complex as the human brain?