The brain is not a computer

Contrary to popular belief, our brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge, or store memories like a computer. In fact, it doesn't contain most of the things people think it does, such as memories. This misconception has historical roots, but the invention of computers in the 1940s further reinforced the idea that the human brain works like a computer.

However, when we're born, we don't possess any information, data, rules, or software—elements that allow digital computers to behave intelligently. We don't develop these things over time either. Computers process information, store and retrieve it, and follow algorithms to operate on data. Humans, on the other hand, do not and never will.

The information processing (IP) metaphor of human intelligence is a dominant yet flawed concept. It's based on a faulty syllogism: all computers are capable of behaving intelligently, all computers are information processors, thus, all entities capable of behaving intelligently are information processors. The IP metaphor is another story we tell ourselves to make sense of something we don't truly understand, much like earlier metaphors based on hydraulic engineering, automata, and telegraphs.

The IP metaphor is sticky, influencing the thinking of researchers across multiple fields for decades. However, just as we now view older metaphors as silly, the IP metaphor will eventually be abandoned and seen the same way. The challenge is to understand human intelligence without relying on this flimsy intellectual crutch, and to recognize the potential costs of leaning on this crutch for so long.

The popular Information Processing (IP) metaphor, which compares the human brain to a computer, is misleading and has hindered the progress of understanding how our brains actually work. The brain doesn't have "memory banks" to store information and "software" that processes it. Instead, our mental experiences result from complex biological processes that don't resemble the functioning of computers.

Cognitive science has relied on the IP metaphor for over half a century, which has led to incorrect assumptions about the brain's capabilities. For instance, the brain doesn't store exact copies of our experiences or retrieve them like a computer would. Our brains change in an orderly way due to experiences, but no actual 'storage' of information occurs.

Memory tasks often involve multiple and large areas of the brain, and that the idea of individual neurons storing specific memories is preposterous. The mainstream view that our brains function like computers is being challenged by some cognitive scientists, like Anthony Chemero, who propose that human behavior is more about direct interaction with the world rather than computations on mental representations.

Despite the growing alternative view, the mainstream cognitive sciences still hold on to the idea that our brains work like computers. Influential thinkers have made predictions about the future of humanity based on this concept, such as the possibility of downloading human consciousness to a computer. However, the uniqueness of each individual's brain and experiences makes it impossible to create an exact copy of one's mind.

The author concludes that we need to abandon the IP metaphor, as it has not provided any significant insights during its half-century run, and focus on understanding ourselves without being burdened by this intellectual baggage. The time has come to explore alternative perspectives and develop a more accurate understanding of the human brain and its complex processes.