Hi Tom. I’ve been putting off what to do about this post of yours. Though extremely well written, and though I certainly have great respect for you, I also can’t get over how much I cognitively depend upon good metaphors to help me figure things out. And though like you I consider functional computationalists quite misguided, in many ways I also consider the brain/computer analogy to be extremely helpful. But if blogging has taught me anything, it’s that people ultimately just play this game in order to be agreed with. So whenever I talk with people who have opposing views, I find them to generally get angry with me when I make effective opposing arguments. And do I get angry when it goes the other way? I suppose I’d say what they probably say — I don’t recall anyone ever making a good argument against one of my positions, or if they did, I’ve certainly never gotten angry! So it goes…. Anyway I do appreciate you, but also have some opposing positions. I need to figure out how to effectively communicate them for my own blog rather than always just provide commentary at the blogs of others (and angering them too often). I doubt my writing skills will ever be nearly as good as yours, but need to try anyway.
Hey Eric, I also depend on metaphor and find the brain-as-a-computer metaphor helpful. However, as Intelligence Evolved shows repeatedly, there is much to understanding the human brain that is outside the explanatory power of the brain-as-a-computer metaphor.
I have learned (the hard way) to differentiate between verified understanding and the feeling of understanding. I experience feelings, Aha moments--even in dreams-- where I believe I solved a difficult problem only to discover later that the feeling was false. Metaphor is in the business of providing Aha moments. It is not a physical model that can be tested or verified.
Thanks for your understanding Tom! Though we’re both against functional computationalism, the question that needs to be determined is specifically how they’re wrong? By claiming that the brain/computer analogy itself is misguided, I’d say that you’re in the mainstream opposition to their still dominant position. Conversely I not only think I can show that there are certain important ways that the brain/computer analogy is quite good, but that functional computationalists fail to meet this standard. Here’s the gist:
Computers function by (1) accepting input information, (2) processing it algorithmically, and then (3) the processed information goes on to inform appropriate mechanisms. I know of no exceptions to this rule. But functional computationalists stop one step short of this standard by positing that our brains create consciousness by means of processed information in itself that needn’t go on to inform an associated consciousness substrate. This is why they think it’s conceptually fine for our computers to potentially host human consciousness — if it’s just a matter of converting the right bytes to the right other bytes, then why not? While that position is no more falsifiable than “God did it”, the model that I present could be empirically validated or refuted, and perhaps even by means of existing technology.
Regardless I’ll be interested in your thoughts on how brains don’t function like computers, and hope you’ll be interested in my thoughts on how they do function like computers though functional computationalists fail to meet that standard.
I am also not a fan of functional computationalism. But perhaps even more redical than that, I am not a fan of reprepresentatonalism. Later this year, I will be introducing posts on how non-human animals and human infants are able to think without representations. Representations emerge only in tool-making animals and young humans.
I will also have a post within the next few weeks that show that computers and brains are not only different in mechanism, but different in purpose as well. It is not a question of apples and oranges but apples and light bulbs.
I’ll be curious about your anti-representationalism posts later this year. Apples and lightbulbs? It’ll be hard not to not steal that association some day. I consider consciousness science today mainly a joke, and that you skillfully capitalize on this with quality arguments. Hopefully I’ll be able to do a better job than standard theorists have, and without the need for any magic or to make a “vitalism” type of move.
Perhaps you’ve seen my post #2 “I value, therefore I am”? In it I went beyond Descartes to argue that I should consider the goodness to badness of existing that I feel, as the most basic element of reality that I cannot dispute the existence of. So if such value is the most verified element of reality that I can rely upon to exist, then what creates it? I presume that the good to bad things that I feel exist by means of certain types of brain function. Furthermore value seems possible to eliminate by means of anesthesia. So what does anesthesia do to a brain that eliminates the creation of value? In my coming post #3 I plan to break this down by theorizing the emergence of value in an evolutionary capacity. Hopefully our discussion here will motivate me to finally get this going!
I am currently working on a post titled "Knowledge We Are Born With". One form of innate knowledge is emotion which is neither declarative nor procedural but value-based...an innate valance that biases and motivates healthy behavior. See also https://tomrearick.substack.com/p/why-emotion-matters
Give me an example when we shouldn't use metaphor to guide our everyday behavior? Or an example where using metaphor results in the wrong behavior that is harmful. An example that relates to our present governmental chaos would be appreciated.
We should and must use metaphor in everyday life. However, if you watch Fox News, you will hear a lot of creative use of metaphor that puts a positive spin on cruel or unconstitutional behavior. Yesterday on Fox, Democrats defending the constitution were described as "legal resistance". That uses the metaphor politics-is-war where laws and ideas are regions to be invaded or defended and the court is a weapon. Republicans describe themselves as victims of the "weaponization of the Justice Department"...even when they are found guity by a jury of their peers (not by judges or politicians).
Here are two metaphors that describe our current state of affairs.
The first comes from the movie, Being There. In a discussion about the economy with the President, Chance the Gardener (Peter Sellers) takes his cue from the words "stimulate growth" and talks about the changing seasons of the garden. "In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again." The President misinterprets this as optimistic political advice and quotes "Chauncey Gardiner" in a speech. Trump might say that we are in the winter of Biden.
Related to the seasons metaphor is the gardening metaphor of trimming away dead wood. It is what gardeners do and also what DOGE claims to be doing. The trimming of branches and people is supposed improve growth/productivity. However, we know that Musk prefers a chainsaw to pruner shears.
Hi Tom. I’ve been putting off what to do about this post of yours. Though extremely well written, and though I certainly have great respect for you, I also can’t get over how much I cognitively depend upon good metaphors to help me figure things out. And though like you I consider functional computationalists quite misguided, in many ways I also consider the brain/computer analogy to be extremely helpful. But if blogging has taught me anything, it’s that people ultimately just play this game in order to be agreed with. So whenever I talk with people who have opposing views, I find them to generally get angry with me when I make effective opposing arguments. And do I get angry when it goes the other way? I suppose I’d say what they probably say — I don’t recall anyone ever making a good argument against one of my positions, or if they did, I’ve certainly never gotten angry! So it goes…. Anyway I do appreciate you, but also have some opposing positions. I need to figure out how to effectively communicate them for my own blog rather than always just provide commentary at the blogs of others (and angering them too often). I doubt my writing skills will ever be nearly as good as yours, but need to try anyway.
Hey Eric, I also depend on metaphor and find the brain-as-a-computer metaphor helpful. However, as Intelligence Evolved shows repeatedly, there is much to understanding the human brain that is outside the explanatory power of the brain-as-a-computer metaphor.
I have learned (the hard way) to differentiate between verified understanding and the feeling of understanding. I experience feelings, Aha moments--even in dreams-- where I believe I solved a difficult problem only to discover later that the feeling was false. Metaphor is in the business of providing Aha moments. It is not a physical model that can be tested or verified.
Thanks for your comment and for being a reader.
Thanks for your understanding Tom! Though we’re both against functional computationalism, the question that needs to be determined is specifically how they’re wrong? By claiming that the brain/computer analogy itself is misguided, I’d say that you’re in the mainstream opposition to their still dominant position. Conversely I not only think I can show that there are certain important ways that the brain/computer analogy is quite good, but that functional computationalists fail to meet this standard. Here’s the gist:
Computers function by (1) accepting input information, (2) processing it algorithmically, and then (3) the processed information goes on to inform appropriate mechanisms. I know of no exceptions to this rule. But functional computationalists stop one step short of this standard by positing that our brains create consciousness by means of processed information in itself that needn’t go on to inform an associated consciousness substrate. This is why they think it’s conceptually fine for our computers to potentially host human consciousness — if it’s just a matter of converting the right bytes to the right other bytes, then why not? While that position is no more falsifiable than “God did it”, the model that I present could be empirically validated or refuted, and perhaps even by means of existing technology.
Regardless I’ll be interested in your thoughts on how brains don’t function like computers, and hope you’ll be interested in my thoughts on how they do function like computers though functional computationalists fail to meet that standard.
There's a lot there to digest. First of all, see my post on consciousness at https://tomrearick.substack.com/p/the-end-of-consciousnessism. I am not a fan of vitalism or consciousness.
I am also not a fan of functional computationalism. But perhaps even more redical than that, I am not a fan of reprepresentatonalism. Later this year, I will be introducing posts on how non-human animals and human infants are able to think without representations. Representations emerge only in tool-making animals and young humans.
I will also have a post within the next few weeks that show that computers and brains are not only different in mechanism, but different in purpose as well. It is not a question of apples and oranges but apples and light bulbs.
I’ll be curious about your anti-representationalism posts later this year. Apples and lightbulbs? It’ll be hard not to not steal that association some day. I consider consciousness science today mainly a joke, and that you skillfully capitalize on this with quality arguments. Hopefully I’ll be able to do a better job than standard theorists have, and without the need for any magic or to make a “vitalism” type of move.
Perhaps you’ve seen my post #2 “I value, therefore I am”? In it I went beyond Descartes to argue that I should consider the goodness to badness of existing that I feel, as the most basic element of reality that I cannot dispute the existence of. So if such value is the most verified element of reality that I can rely upon to exist, then what creates it? I presume that the good to bad things that I feel exist by means of certain types of brain function. Furthermore value seems possible to eliminate by means of anesthesia. So what does anesthesia do to a brain that eliminates the creation of value? In my coming post #3 I plan to break this down by theorizing the emergence of value in an evolutionary capacity. Hopefully our discussion here will motivate me to finally get this going!
I am currently working on a post titled "Knowledge We Are Born With". One form of innate knowledge is emotion which is neither declarative nor procedural but value-based...an innate valance that biases and motivates healthy behavior. See also https://tomrearick.substack.com/p/why-emotion-matters
Give me an example when we shouldn't use metaphor to guide our everyday behavior? Or an example where using metaphor results in the wrong behavior that is harmful. An example that relates to our present governmental chaos would be appreciated.
We should and must use metaphor in everyday life. However, if you watch Fox News, you will hear a lot of creative use of metaphor that puts a positive spin on cruel or unconstitutional behavior. Yesterday on Fox, Democrats defending the constitution were described as "legal resistance". That uses the metaphor politics-is-war where laws and ideas are regions to be invaded or defended and the court is a weapon. Republicans describe themselves as victims of the "weaponization of the Justice Department"...even when they are found guity by a jury of their peers (not by judges or politicians).
Here are two metaphors that describe our current state of affairs.
The first comes from the movie, Being There. In a discussion about the economy with the President, Chance the Gardener (Peter Sellers) takes his cue from the words "stimulate growth" and talks about the changing seasons of the garden. "In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again." The President misinterprets this as optimistic political advice and quotes "Chauncey Gardiner" in a speech. Trump might say that we are in the winter of Biden.
Related to the seasons metaphor is the gardening metaphor of trimming away dead wood. It is what gardeners do and also what DOGE claims to be doing. The trimming of branches and people is supposed improve growth/productivity. However, we know that Musk prefers a chainsaw to pruner shears.
You must have read my commentary about Musk using a chainsaw in a vineyard instead of pruning shears. Cheers