3 ms·
A psychology professor once said to me that throughout history our theories of the mind tend to analogize the dominant research paradigm of the time. At one tim
by forapurpose 9y ago
A psychology professor once said to me that throughout history our theories of the mind tend to analogize the dominant research paradigm of the time. At one time it was chemistry, then physics, and now it's computer science.
I write that because it suggests that our theories of mind depend our own perspectives to a great degree - perhaps in their conclusions, or in how we describe them, or in our choice of research. (I wish I could remember the chemistry or physics analogies ATM.)
- psyc 9y agoIt is possible that the successive paradigms are objectively more powerful. So, a matter of perspective, but not perspectives of equal value, and also not diminished by the expectation of future paradigms we don't have yet.
- alexpetralia 9y agoThat's exactly the first thing I thought as well. This article is relevant: 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...
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago>This article is relevant: https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-informati.. https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-informati.... That article is a piece of shit which misunderstands the definition of computation, the claims of naive versus modern computationalism in philosophy of mind, and modern neuroscience, all at once. Without any judgement, I'd like to ask that we all stop sharing it.