Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short: your brain is not a computer

the-podcast guy recently linked this essay, its old, but i don’t think its significantly wrong (despite gpt evangelists) also read weizenbaum, libs, for the other side of the coin

  • Formerlyfarman [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    8·
    6 months ago

    The op its not arguing it has a metaphisical component. Its arguing the structure of the brain is diferent frome the structure of your pc. The metaphor bit is important because all thinking is metaphor with different levels of rigor and abstraction. A faulty metaphor forces you to think the wrong way.

    I do disagree with some things, whats a metaphor if not a model? Whats reacting to stimuli if not processing information?

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      6·
      6 months ago

      The op its not arguing it has a metaphisical component.

      Yes they are. They might scream in your face that they’re not, but the argument they’re making is based not on science and observation but rather the chains of a christian culture they do not feel and cannot see.

      A faulty metaphor forces you to think the wrong way.

      The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, if it’s accurate at all, does not have a strong effect.

      whats a metaphor if not a model?

      To quote the dictionary; “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.” Which seems to be the real problem, here; Psychologists and philosophers hear someone using a metaphor and think they must literally believe what the psychologist or philosopher believes about the symbol being used.

      • Formerlyfarman [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

        I think you are rigth. Our dissagrement comes from thinking the metaphor refers to structure rather than just language. Lets say an atomic model were the electrons ar flying around a nucleus formimg shells, is also not literaly aplicable. But we think of it as a useful metaphore because its close enough.

        The same should apply to the most sophisticated mathematical models. A useful metaphor should then be a more primitive form of thise process where it illustrates a mechanism. If the mechanism is different from the mechanism in the metaphor then it should be wrong.

        If the metaphor is just there to provide names, then you are offcourse rigth that it should not change anything.

        Whether the metaphor of computers and brains is correct or not should also have no effect on wether we can simulate a brain in a computer. Computers can after all simulate many things that do not work like computers.