
Yes, the Brain Is a Computer - ALee
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2016/05/yes-your-brain-certainly-is-computer.html
======
wwweston
The author's analogy at the beginning involving birds, airplanes, and flying
machines seems pretty spot on to me, but it's a double edged sword the author
apparently hasn't thought much about.

Ask yourself if it's apt to call a bird a flying machine.

You likely see the problem right away. That description is at least accurate
within limits, but it's also reductive to the point where it will induce
blindness if you don't recognize its limits. A "flying machine" is only one of
the things a bird is. And if you were trying to figure out how to make
something very much like a bird, you wouldn't get very far by focusing on the
idea that a bird is an flying machine like an airplane.

Similarly, it's true enough that the brain is a computer in the sense that it
does computation. That description is at least accurate within limits. But
brains do things that we don't know how to get computers to do yet (yes, we're
getting better at creating systems that have capacity for
performing/optimizing tasks with less explicitly pre-encoded domain logic, but
we're still doing that, and as far as I can tell nobody has demonstrated any
testable or practically applicable idea of what constitutes consciousness).
It's reasonable to assume that a computer might be only one of the things a
brain is, and it seems likely that you won't get far by focusing on the idea
that a brain is like a present-day von neumann digital computer in the same
way a bird is like an airplane.

~~~
bytefactory
I agree with you completely!

At the same time, it's worth noting that it makes sense to approach the
problem in a reductive (using the word loosely, not sure if it's completely
accurate) manner, i.e., keep replicating features and capabilities of human
brains until we possibly hit a wall in the form of consciousness, although
it's quite possible that it turns out to be an emergent property [1], although
I suspect it's a bit more complicated than that.

[1] It seems to me that most explanations that consciousness is "emergent" or
an "illusion" would never _predict_ the experiences we actually consider
consciousness, like "fire is caused by phlogiston":
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/ip/fake_explanations/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/ip/fake_explanations/).
At the same time, I recognize that I couldn't tell the difference between this
world and one populated by philosophical zombies
([http://lesswrong.com/lw/p7/zombies_zombies/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/p7/zombies_zombies/)).

Edit: I should clarify regarding my footnote that I don't believe in
epiphenomenalism, I believe consciousness is a purely material phenomenon, I
like to think of it as an overview process running in the brain, responding to
the other stimulus to take appropriate action.

------
nickpsecurity
Good article. I also posted my comment suggesting it's a general-purpose,
analog computer on his blog. It makes Epsteins claims make so much more sense
when you think of it as a distributed, fault-tolerant, reconfigurable, analog
machine working on models that approximate stuff. So, it's a computer. Just
not a digital one.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11731697](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11731697)

~~~
rco8786
Considering it runs on electrons, you could even consider it a digital one if
you wanted to.

~~~
yeowMeng
Or alternatively, a digital impulse chemical continuum computer.

Features include: * No stack * Mostly type safe * Process complex thoughts
known as emotions

Bugs: * ships without a C compiler * Consumes too much coffee * Version
upgrades correlated to earth's rotation around the sun.

~~~
nickpsecurity
You're getting closer. Digital computers work in individual, specific
operations on a data representation. Analog computers are continuous on
actual, raw data. The brain is continuous on raw data with some kind of
storage. So, it seems to be a mostly analog system with possibly digital-like
features embedded in it. The combo of analog and digital is called mixed-
signal in ASIC design, though usually more digital than analog.

Brain seems like a mixed-signal system that's mostly analog.

" ships without a C compiler *"

A feature. Invents & continually improves compilation instead from safer
languages to C to safe languages again. ;)

"Version upgrades correlated to earth's rotation around the sun."

That's funny and original.

------
tps5
I was frustrated reading the article to which this one is responding. Nice to
read a categorical rebuttal.

------
loup-vaillant
There was a time where "computer" used to be a job title. The digital
computers we created were basically made in our image. Given this, who can be
surprised at the idea that our nervous systems are computers of sorts?

------
zodPod
When I read the dialogue at the beginning of this article, I knew exactly what
article he was responding to. I had the same annoyances reading that article,
good response!

------
sideshowb
Your brain "is" indeed a computer in the same way that your eye "is" jelly.

Sure it computes, but in case you've forgotten there is a whole lot of other
stuff going on as well and we don't have the first clue how.

~~~
khedoros
The brain is a computer, a chemical regulator, and a number of other things.
Those are functional descriptions. The eye is an optical sensor, built in part
on a jelly and protein substrate, just like the rest of our bodies.

Put another way, the eye is composed of jelly (among other things), but the
brain isn't composed of a computer (among other things). It's a difference
between function and composition.

------
exolymph
Delightful snark AND intellectually interesting. Good one =D

------
JohnLeTigre
Wow, that guy completely misunderstood the original poster and showcased not
only a lack of philosophical depth but also a condescending and bickering
attitude.

Bad article, too personal and intellectually frigid.

