Brains - are not computers that process information

But Ed won't the pc grow to become more brain-like

Was going to post this article too, especially since to me computers have always been a good analogy to the brain and this challenges my notions on the subject.

Still perusing follow up research but so far it seems to me that the author is stating that our brains do not physically work like computers, and that to me does not mean that computers are inherently a bad analogy to use. With so much about the brain not understood it is probable that any analogy would be similarly flawed.

I am no computer geek and certainly no scientist. How could I answer questions like yours?

I read the entire article, but I need to wait a day or so and read again.

Me nuther

Consider dualistic nature of the comparison. To say the brain isn't like a computer is like saying
an auto isn't like a train, a book isn't like a movie

One thing I know for sure - A symphony is not like a growling belly.

Nice article. I agree with it. But I'm a bit surprised anyone really thinks that the brain is anything like a computer. I always thought that was just an analogy, and an over-simplified one at that.

Back in the 1980s when I was getting into computing, I was interested in the work of John R Searle, who said that that computers will never be intelligent, no matter how far down the technological time line we go, they do not have mental states, and correspondingly, brains are not computers. Computers are syntactical whilst humans are semantical.

Link to a summary of his famous "Chinese Room" argument:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

I scanned the article, very interesting.

Will have to read it more carefully later.

What jumped out at me now was man's need to explain how the brain, or anything works. Going from man made of clay to comparison to a computer.

The 2 phrases that come to mind, may not perfectly apply, but spoke to me, was "deus ex machina" and "ghost in the machine"

The intertwining of "I don't know how this works, let's create some myth, that will solve the problem, even if illogically" and "I don't know how it works, I'm not going to examine it, I'll just say it was something"

I really appreciate the last paragraph in the article:

"We are organisms, not computers. Get over it. Let’s get on with the business of trying to understand ourselves, but without being encumbered by unnecessary intellectual baggage. The IP metaphor has had a half-century run, producing few, if any, insights along the way. The time has come to hit the DELETE key."

,
Supposedly the brain is like an orchestra; different circuits are competing to get the promotion to consciousness. I didn't read the link, so I may be giving redundant info.?

Brings into q the assertion that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, that the brain is partly a computer and v v

Yeah, I have long used it as an analogy but the article seems to be refuting people who are using it in an academic context to actually understand the brain.

Computers can't replace humans as car drivers, because human behavior is erratic.

Really Circerone, you have never seen a computer behave erratically?

This article makes an interesting argument. But let's not take this too far.

There is no doubt that computers are now performing tasks that used be consider things that only humans could do. I remember learning as a kid that "no human programmer can make a chess program that plays better than herself. This has clearly been proven wrong.

Now computers can

- Play and win against the best human chess players.
- Play and win against the best human go players... ok I am jumping the gun, but this was thought impossible only a few years ago.
- Understand speech
- Drive cars safely in real world conditions including interacting with normal human drivers.
- Navigate obstacles on Mars.
- Fly airplanes to complex for human pilots to fly unassisted.

No one seems to know how to define intelligence. But as computers do more and more things that we used to say required intelligence, human seem to want to keep moving the goalposts.

Computers are very fast computational devices. But it's important to remember that a computer makes as many mistakes in two seconds as 20 men working 20 years make.

I've been LMAO for years whenever I read an article on neuroscience that tries to make this comparison. They present pictures of FMRI studies of the brain showing gross 'activity' in various areas and pretend it tells them specifics about how the brain works.

I'm not a neuro scientist but I know computers and I have a brain and there has never been any doubt in my mind that there is almost no relationship between the two.

Ironically, there are all kinds of similarities between cellular biology and computers.

Different aspect. We're talking about human behavior when a computer takes over a car.

I think you are wrong. And I think there is now pretty conclusive evidence that you are wrong. Humans are crappy drivers... this doesn't mean that computers (being better, safer drivers) can't operate with them. If you don't believe this, open up a decent chess playing program... act erratically and see if the computer can't still operate (i.e. choose moves that will win the game) in spite of the fact that you aren't playing well.

What are you basing your conclusion on? At what point will you look at the actual work being done to create safe self-driving cars and test them operating safely in real-world conditions and change your mind.