What are the links that are proposed between consciousness and computation? I.e. what are the theories of how computation creates consciousness?
See James A. Reggia: The rise of machine consciousness: Studying consciousness with computational models. Neural Networks 44 (2013) 112–131 - The paper surveys some of the currently discussed models namely
- Global workspace
- Information integration
- Internal self-models
- Higher-level representation
- Attention mechanisms
I can send you the paper on request.
links ... between consciousness and computation ...
...assumes the reasonableness of the brain~computer analogy in the first place.
And although that's a widely accepted analogy, I'd suggest it's almost certainly very, very wrong.
Firstly, recall that up till the 1930s, or so, people generally accepted the brain~telephone-exchange analogy, i.e., the brain collects lots and lots of signals from all over the body, and then sends lots and lots of signals back out to the body. And while all this is quite true, it's a very, very incomplete description of what the brain does. But it was the only (or at least the best) kind of analogy people had before computers. See, e.g., https://books.google.com/books?id=yRyETy43AdQC&pg=PA118 (Of course, Charles Babbage invented and built a more-or-less mechanical computer in the mid-1800s, but I guess those 1930s people didn't generally draw any kind of brain~babbage analogy.)
Secondly, and even way earlier, classical Greeks had the Archimedes screw for raising water, but it wasn't until the ~1500s when the mechanical pump, as we know it, was invented. And only then did it become clear that the heart's a pump. Before that, it had been considered kind of "magical", e.g., https://tranquilitysecret.com/before-the-pump-was-invented-what-did-the-heart-do-7ce24234429d (but there are probably better online discussions about that than this).
So finally, considering the above two points, who's to say that today's electronic computers are really good, analogous models of the brain? I'd personally agree that the brain is ultimately physical, and therefore could be simulated on a computer. But if such a simulation needed to descend to the molecular level, even today's fastest computer would take longer than the age of the universe before it could consciously say "good morning". So it's more than likely that computers are only slightly better brain analogies than telephone exchanges.
Brains are still, like hearts were, "magical". We're still in the pre-pump era when hearts were magical, and we have yet to invent an adequately analogous brain device. At best, saying brain~computer would be like saying heart~Archimedes-screw. So any "links proposed between consciousness and computation" will be very, very shaky, at best.