[sebastialonso]

Why not? I keep seeing these discussions pointing out the futility of thinking about the brain as a computer, but still don't see powerful arguments to back that postulate up, other than the 'brain too hard, computer too easy, so brain no computer'.

Brain as a computer, in my opinion should be the default state for this discussions. Why? Consider the old and tired brain-made-of-matter argument. There's no reason to think there's something magical or supernatural inside the brain, so treat it as an organized collection of atoms doing cool stuff. The default state cannot be magic, it has to be something that can be disproved or ruled out.

Some parts of it seem to work, as fas as we know, in a (suspiciously) algorithmic way, or in other words, a highly abstract step-by-step chain of actions can be identify for a given part of the brain.

Why not start with the crazy assumption that the whole brain acts as a computer (the theoretical concept), and then identify which parts of it fail the analogy? The key part here is the word 'fail': it should not mean 'too complex for any computer we have built' nor 'we don't know any algorithm that does that', it should mean that there are parts that inherently cannot be modelled, under any circumstances, like the definition of algorithm. If some part is discovered not to hold the analogy, you should just then question if the analogy is question is apt or not.

[Gobitron]

It's totally fair for one to start with that assumption, and stick with it until proven otherwise. But it's just as fair for me to be skeptical of the analogy. Before the concept of computers existed, people (very smart people) thought the complex organisms worked just like mechanical machines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_philosophy), and I'm sure there were - and are - many similarities and likenesses to be drawn. However that analogy wasn't correct as we now know. So we're on to the current thinking. Fair enough.

I also think it's a jump to go from "if brain isn't a computer - then magical". There's a lot of room in between. And there are plenty of reasons to think that what goes on inside the brain cannot be mimicked by a computer or algorithms as we currently know them. We don't even know what consciousness is! We should at least admit as much...

[sebastialonso]

I really liked the point of mechanical philosophy you made. This is science in action, when one paradigm can no longer be a valid model, a revised one with none of its weaknesses but with more virtues arises, in this case, the computing machine philosophy.

>And there are plenty of reasons to think that what goes on inside the brain cannot be mimicked by a computer or algorithms as we currently know them. We don't even know what consciousness is! We should at least admit as much...

I agree, it's a huge jump! And that's precisely my point. The brain as a computer paradigm has nothing to do with the idea that an i5 core can't recognize cats, is the theoretical aspect of a computing machine that is used when trying to argue in favour of the BaaC paradigm.

Conciousness is precisely what doesn't fit in the BaaC paradigm. So the research should start from there. I'm curious if the definition conciousness will have to be changed in the near future. Exciting times!