3 ms·

I think there is a strong cognitive bias in the present culture of thinking of the brain like a computer or hard drive. I’ve been meaning to coin a fallacy for

I think there is a strong cognitive bias in the present culture of thinking of the brain like a computer or hard drive. I’ve been meaning to coin a fallacy for this. Every era is absolutely certain that fundamental reality is just like [currently dominant technology] and always has been. I expect the fundamental reality of 2200 to be some kind of mystical networked entity, probably either deistic or pantheistic in nature.

MildlySerious 5y ago
I've been leaning towards a similar mode of thinking, and like to make the point when people get too obsessed about how the universe is a simulation or a neural network. What I have been missing is a nice list with previous examples of this line of thinking. The only good one that comes to mind is how seafaring and the ubiquity of maps was one such moment in history. I'd be curious if you have other examples.
- keiferski 5y ago
  The Clockwork Universe is my go-to example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_philosophy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_philosophy
  - meowface 5y ago
    I kind of take the opposite view. I suspect all of the analogies - the clockwork, machine, computer, network universe - may all be right. I think all of these advances and corresponding analogies better help us understand nature, and I think people making these analogies did so for good reasons. The development of the technologies opened the door to new types of system conceptualizations. I do think these types of analogies don't really work for the brain, though, or at least only scratch the surface. (Clearly the brain networks and computes, but there's much more going on.) I'm a physicalist, but I suspect it might take longer to fully understand the brain than it'll take to fully understand the universe. (At least to a feasible level of universe detail; the difference is there'll probably be a point where we'll know we know the brain, but we won't necessarily ever be able to know if we've fully cracked the universe at the root, even if we can explain all observed phenomena.)
    - keiferski 5y ago
      Sure, I’m not saying that these theories were inherently wrong, just that the idea of the universe being akin to [current technology] is almost certainly incomplete at best and extremely misleading at worst.
lurquer 5y ago
Indeed. I cringe when this mindset worms it’s way into technical terms. I remember cringing when the term ‘genetic algorithm’ became popular. (It’s a great optimization technique for some things, but it has little to do with biological evolution.) Likewise, ‘Neural Nets’. Aaargh... incredible technology, but nothing resembling an actual neuron. From early decades, the term ‘computer’ — I feel — kinda hampered people’s ideas about what a computer could do. Specifically, the term ‘computer’ or ‘computor’ referred, originally, to a person who added up stuff: it was a job description in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Did the term’s prior usage affect the things for which early computers were used for?

MildlySerious 5y ago

I've been leaning towards a similar mode of thinking, and like to make the point when people get too obsessed about how the universe is a simulation or a neural network. What I have been missing is a nice list with previous examples of this line of thinking. The only good one that comes to mind is how seafaring and the ubiquity of maps was one such moment in history. I'd be curious if you have other examples.

keiferski 5y ago
The Clockwork Universe is my go-to example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_philosophy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_philosophy
- meowface 5y ago
  I kind of take the opposite view. I suspect all of the analogies - the clockwork, machine, computer, network universe - may all be right. I think all of these advances and corresponding analogies better help us understand nature, and I think people making these analogies did so for good reasons. The development of the technologies opened the door to new types of system conceptualizations. I do think these types of analogies don't really work for the brain, though, or at least only scratch the surface. (Clearly the brain networks and computes, but there's much more going on.) I'm a physicalist, but I suspect it might take longer to fully understand the brain than it'll take to fully understand the universe. (At least to a feasible level of universe detail; the difference is there'll probably be a point where we'll know we know the brain, but we won't necessarily ever be able to know if we've fully cracked the universe at the root, even if we can explain all observed phenomena.)
  - keiferski 5y ago
    Sure, I’m not saying that these theories were inherently wrong, just that the idea of the universe being akin to [current technology] is almost certainly incomplete at best and extremely misleading at worst.

lurquer 5y ago

Indeed. I cringe when this mindset worms it’s way into technical terms. I remember cringing when the term ‘genetic algorithm’ became popular. (It’s a great optimization technique for some things, but it has little to do with biological evolution.) Likewise, ‘Neural Nets’. Aaargh... incredible technology, but nothing resembling an actual neuron. From early decades, the term ‘computer’ — I feel — kinda hampered people’s ideas about what a computer could do. Specifically, the term ‘computer’ or ‘computor’ referred, originally, to a person who added up stuff: it was a job description in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Did the term’s prior usage affect the things for which early computers were used for?