> 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 a

> 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.