5 ms·

The author states that: > Until recently there were really no very good analogies available On the contrary, our theories of mind have mirrored our latest t

The author states that: > Until recently there were really no very good analogies available On the contrary, our theories of mind have mirrored our latest technology for thousands of years. First, a hydraulic model, with "humours" flowing throughout the body's plumbing; then a mechanical model with tiny machinery; then an electo-chemical model with charges and currents. This article argues strongly that our present computer-based metaphor is likewise off-the-mark: https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-informati...

wsgeorge 10y ago
> This article argues strongly that our present computer-based metaphor is likewise off-the-mark Well, it is a metaphor, so, by definition, off the mark. The article only does well to hammer home the fact, as does the OP (at least, early on). The metaphor eventually breaks down when you take it too far, too literally, otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. It will be the exact same thing. The brain-as-hardware-mind-as-software is a useful model for dealing with the mind-body problem, and giving us a fair idea of how a virtual mind can exist in (on?) a physical brain. Of course, you can't fault earlier ideas of thinking about the brain: it is only natural (and beneficial) to think of the mind in terms of the most complex man-made (or man-understood) technology currently available, without necessarily holding fast to it dogmatically when a better model is found. Think of it as necessary stepping stones to the destination. If anything, it is naive to think that the brain/mind works exactly like our current computing architecture. It is also naive and premature to completely banish the idea that the brain is some sort of computing mechanism.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  Whenever this topic comes up in HN, a sometimes quite large fraction of the comments do make, or are predicated on, what seem to me to be unjustifiably specific analogies to current software technology (I guess that's no surprise.)
  - lgas 10y ago
    I imagine it's because they're implemented in PHP.
    - xg15 10y ago
      That's totally flawed thinking. The brain is of course written in JavaScript.
xg15 10y ago
Ah yes, I remember that article from a different HN discussion a few months ago. The notes about historical analogies are interesting, but I can't agree with any of the conclusions Epstein makes. Here is a counter-article that I think sums up the problems pretty well: https://sergiograziosi.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/robert-epsteins-empty-essay/ https://sergiograziosi.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/robert-epste... As for the analogies, I think it's good to know the historical ones have existed and put the "brains are computers" metaphor in the right context. But Epstein seems to conclude "there already were lots of different analogies in the past, therfore all analogies are useless". I don't see how that sentiment gets us anywhere. Wouldn't it be more useful to accept that we're always trying to explain the world in metaphors and find tools to separate the good metaphors from the bad ones?
- wsgeorge 10y ago
  > Wouldn't it be more useful to accept that we're always trying to explain the world in metaphors and find tools to separate the good metaphors from the bad ones? Absolutely. I completely disagree with Epstein's conclusion as it reads from the text. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and interpret him as trying to steer clear of the oversimplification a satisfying analogy can encourage. In fact, he hammers on some of the ridiculous consequences of overenthusiastic embracing of this metaphor. I wouldn't want to believe he doesn't understand, as you put it, that "we're always trying to explain the world in metaphors and find tools to separate the good metaphors from the bad ones".
  - xg15 10y ago
    I think it also highlight that different people - even experts from different fields - can have vastly different definitions for things that seem common - e.g. what a computer is or even what "information processing" entails. So I could kind of understand him if he wanted to defend against people who heard "the brain is like a computer" and then jumpted to conclusions "oh, so the brain has a hard drive and a processor and can be programmed to do stuff"...
    - wsgeorge 10y ago

wsgeorge 10y ago

> This article argues strongly that our present computer-based metaphor is likewise off-the-mark Well, it is a metaphor, so, by definition, off the mark. The article only does well to hammer home the fact, as does the OP (at least, early on). The metaphor eventually breaks down when you take it too far, too literally, otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. It will be the exact same thing. The brain-as-hardware-mind-as-software is a useful model for dealing with the mind-body problem, and giving us a fair idea of how a virtual mind can exist in (on?) a physical brain. Of course, you can't fault earlier ideas of thinking about the brain: it is only natural (and beneficial) to think of the mind in terms of the most complex man-made (or man-understood) technology currently available, without necessarily holding fast to it dogmatically when a better model is found. Think of it as necessary stepping stones to the destination. If anything, it is naive to think that the brain/mind works exactly like our current computing architecture. It is also naive and premature to completely banish the idea that the brain is some sort of computing mechanism.

mannykannot 10y ago
Whenever this topic comes up in HN, a sometimes quite large fraction of the comments do make, or are predicated on, what seem to me to be unjustifiably specific analogies to current software technology (I guess that's no surprise.)
- lgas 10y ago
  I imagine it's because they're implemented in PHP.
  - xg15 10y ago
    That's totally flawed thinking. The brain is of course written in JavaScript.

xg15 10y ago

Ah yes, I remember that article from a different HN discussion a few months ago. The notes about historical analogies are interesting, but I can't agree with any of the conclusions Epstein makes. Here is a counter-article that I think sums up the problems pretty well: https://sergiograziosi.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/robert-epsteins-empty-essay/ https://sergiograziosi.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/robert-epste... As for the analogies, I think it's good to know the historical ones have existed and put the "brains are computers" metaphor in the right context. But Epstein seems to conclude "there already were lots of different analogies in the past, therfore all analogies are useless". I don't see how that sentiment gets us anywhere. Wouldn't it be more useful to accept that we're always trying to explain the world in metaphors and find tools to separate the good metaphors from the bad ones?

wsgeorge 10y ago
> Wouldn't it be more useful to accept that we're always trying to explain the world in metaphors and find tools to separate the good metaphors from the bad ones? Absolutely. I completely disagree with Epstein's conclusion as it reads from the text. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and interpret him as trying to steer clear of the oversimplification a satisfying analogy can encourage. In fact, he hammers on some of the ridiculous consequences of overenthusiastic embracing of this metaphor. I wouldn't want to believe he doesn't understand, as you put it, that "we're always trying to explain the world in metaphors and find tools to separate the good metaphors from the bad ones".
- xg15 10y ago
  I think it also highlight that different people - even experts from different fields - can have vastly different definitions for things that seem common - e.g. what a computer is or even what "information processing" entails. So I could kind of understand him if he wanted to defend against people who heard "the brain is like a computer" and then jumpted to conclusions "oh, so the brain has a hard drive and a processor and can be programmed to do stuff"...
  - wsgeorge 10y ago