Two and not Three, therefore, incomplete. Best, Jerry R
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > > I recently read a rther controversial essay in *Aeon* by Robert Epstein > on what the author considers to be the "faulty logic of the IP metaphor" > of the brain. > > > https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer > . > > >> Epstein writes: > > > > The faulty logic of the IP metaphor is easy enough to state. It is based > on a faulty syllogism – one with two reasonable premises and a faulty > conclusion. Reasonable premise #1: all computers are capable of behaving > intelligently. Reasonable premise #2: all computers are information > processors. Faulty conclusion: all entities that are capable of behaving > intelligently are information processors. > > > Earlier in the article he sets forth what we do and do not "start with" > and which, in his view, we never develop: > > Senses, reflexes and learning mechanisms – this is what we start with, and > it is quite a lot, when you think about it. If we lacked any of these > capabilities at birth, we would probably have trouble surviving. > > But here is what we are *not* born with: *information, data, rules, > software, knowledge, lexicons, representations, algorithms, programs, > models, memories, images, processors, subroutines, encoders, decoders, > symbols, or buffers* – design elements that allow digital computers to > behave somewhat intelligently. Not only are we not *born* with such > things, we also don’t *develop* them – ever. > > We don’t *store* words or the rules that tell us how to manipulate them. > We don’t create *representations* of visual stimuli, *store* them in a > short-term memory buffer, and then *transfer* the representation into a > long-term memory device. We don’t *retrieve* information or images or > words from memory registers. Computers do all of these thinThe > information processing (IP) metaphor of human intelligence now dominates > human thinking, both on the street and in the sciences. There is virtually > no form of discourse about intelligent human behaviour that proceeds > without employing this metaphor, just as no form of discourse about > intelligent human behaviour could proceed in certain eras and cultures > without reference to a spirit or deity. The validity of the IP metaphor in > today’s world is generally assumed without question. > > But the IP metaphor is, after all, just another metaphor – a story we tell > to make sense of something we don’t actually understand. And like all the > metaphors that preceded it, it will certainly be cast aside at some point – > either replaced by another metaphor or, in the end, replaced by actual > knowledge.gs, but organisms do not. > > *** > > And later: > > [E]ven if we had the ability to take a snapshot of all of the brain’s 86 > billion neurons and then to simulate the state of those neurons in a > computer, *that vast pattern would mean nothing outside the body of the > brain that produced it*. This is perhaps the most egregious way in which > the IP metaphor has distorted our thinking about human functioning. Whereas > computers do store exact copies of data – copies that can persist unchanged > for long periods of time, even if the power has been turned off – the brain > maintains our intellect only as long as it remains *alive*. There is no > on-off switch. Either the brain keeps functioning, or we disappear. What’s > more, as the neurobiologist Steven Rose pointed out in *The Future of the > Brain *(2005), a snapshot of the brain’s current state might also be > meaningless unless we knew the *entire life history* of that brain’s > owner – perhaps even about the *social context* in which he or she was > raised. > > Any thoughts? > > Best, > > Gary R > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
