Computational explanations focus on information processing required in specific cognitive capacities, such as perception, reasoning or decision-making. These explanations specify the nature of the information processing task, what information needs to be represented, and why it should be operated on in a particular manner. In this article, the focus is on three questions concerning the nature of computational explanations: (1) What type of explanations they are, (2) in what sense computational explanations are explanatory and (3) to what extent they involve a special, "independent" or "autonomous" level of explanation. In this paper, we defend the view computational explanations are genuine explanations, which track non-causal/formal dependencies. Specifically, we argue that they do not provide mere sketches for explanation, in contrast to what for example Piccinini and Craver (Synthese 183(3):283-311, 2011) suggest. This view of computational explanations implies some degree of "autonomy" for the computational level. However, as we will demonstrate that does not make this view "computationally chauvinistic" in a way that Piccinini (Synthese 153:343-353, 2006b) or Kaplan (Synthese 183(3):

No abstract

We analyse Hutto and Myin´s three arguments against computationalism (Hutto and Myin 2012, 2017; Hutto et al. forthcoming). The Hard Problem of Content targets computationalism that relies on semantic notion of computation, claiming that it cannot account for the natural origins of content. The Intentionality Problem is targeted against computationalism using non-semantic accounts of computation, arguing that it fails in explaining intentionality. The Abstraction Problem claims that causal interaction between concrete physical processes and abstract computational properties is problematic. We argue that these arguments are flawed and are not enough to rule out computationalism.

No abstract