One caveat off of last post, comparing the brain to a Turing Machine:
Perhaps I should be more careful about making such comparisons. Throughout history, mankind seems to have always used the latest tech to talk about the brain.
The ancient romans said the brain was like a catapult. Later, people have compared the brain to a hydrolics system, a telephone switchboard, or a calculator. And, now we say it’s like a computer, Turing-complete with a Von-Neumann architecture.
Is this a valid comparison, or are we falling into the same trap again? The brain is the most advanced piece of tech that mankind has physical access to, so it’s only natural that we draw comparisons between it and our latest self-developed supertech-du-jour. But, is it a valid comparison?
I remember once reading Hofstadter paraphrasing Godel, saying that a system can never be so complex as to understand itself. So, can we ever really understand the brain? And, can we ever develop technology that is an equitable comparison to the brain?
Or are we always going to view the brain as though through a mirror, darkly?
One Trackback/Pingback
[…] brings to mind a theory that I heard a long while ago, that throughout history we’ve always used the latest technology and science to talk about the brain. The ancient romans said the brain was like a catapult. Later, people have compared the brain to a […]