I assert that knowledge requires effort, at a fundamental level and is but the fruit of computation. I agree with this statement, but where I don't agree is that the brain can be treated as a Turing machine. How real neurons respond to real environmental cues is still not entirely clear, and our understanding is becoming more complex year upon year. For example, it was recently shown that the firing of an action potential is not a mere superposition of the inputs to a neuron, as was previously thought, but actually is highly dependent on the order in which the inputs are received. That is, in neurons, logic gates are not the same as the logic gates in an electric circuit, which I believe is the underlying assumption in a Turing machine. I suppose our divergence is that I don't think of LW as "merely philosophizing". I am of the opinion that good philosophy underlies good science. To me, he was showing us how to think, and thus, how to understand the world around us.