There's actually some very interesting criticism of modern cognitive sciences, one of them contradicting the common idea that neural network based methods were

There's actually some very interesting criticism of modern cognitive sciences, one of them contradicting the common idea that neural network based methods were inspired by a model of "how the brain worked". The criticism basically says that instead, we should be looking at the opposite, with modern cognitive science coming out at a time when computers were the technology de jour. It builds off previous histories and theories of technology which debunk the notion of "neutral" technology. Humans are very much influenced and inspired by doing things because of the technology they have at-hand. Great example is looking at the most common mechanical models of the human heart. The original models for the heart describe it as a system of "pumps" because it was designed right during the height of the end of the industrial revolution, when the technology at the time were big mechanical pumps and machinery. So, the abstract model of the heart as a pump was born and used, not because necessarily its an "accurate" model but mainly because the terminology made sense to people at the time. Nowadays this model is criticised for a lot of reasons. Cognitive science suffers from a lot of assumptions which may have been indirectly influenced by computer science (afterall, you're a researcher coming in at a time when you have these powerful machines that could crunch data. Well surely then you'll need to model the brain in a binary and computer-readable format).