[pasquinelli]

i personally never found that a compelling analogy, just because we do understand computers but we don't understand the brain.

but i guess that's the rhetorical move being used, substitute something the audience doesn't understand with something they do understand.

[IAmBroom]

We are getting close to understanding the brain at the cellular level and below. There is a photo of a charge exchange between neurons, occurring as the rat "recognized" an object - cell-level cognition mechanism.

And you can understand a single line of code. But when all that code is wrapped inside a cellphone, or all those ionic transmitters in a skull - do you really "understand" either? It becomes a black box, with semi-predictable outputs.

[Insanity]

I think it’s more than just translating to a non-understanding audience. I think it’s their point of view being tainted by the technology of their age, so the firmly believe it’s true.

But I agree, it’s not a compelling argument especially when you do understand at least a bit of both domains.