I’m not saying it isn’t on some larger scale an impossible association to make as much as I’m saying it’s presumptive and arrogant to say “in all fairness, it is” as if that’s some indisputable claim.
I could just as easily say the human brain is just a sufficiently complex series of vacuum tubes. Or gears and clockwork. Or wheels. Same reductionist summary attempt, same omission of extraordinary evidence to cover the extraordinary claim.
Don’t they also have evidence to suggest the brain pathways work in ways that we just can’t understand. I’ve seen 4th dimension processing thrown around I think to do with smell or something (quantum tunneling needed for smell to work or something physics based I can’t remember) to describe how certain process and understanding happen parallel or even before stimulus suggesting the brain can make connections in other ways than just neurons and electric current or something like that.
So like to compare the brain to a computer is completely reductionist and computer touchers love it lol.
I realise this comment is just “here’s a load of patchy second hand stuff I’ve heard misrepresented, any idea what I’m talking about cos I fucking don’t lmao” so apologies.
There’s enough that’s unclear or not yet understood for me to say that claiming “in all fairness” that the human brain is just an algorithm/meat-computer/whatever is lazy and arrogant reductionism, that’s for sure.
Someone with a hammer, as the saying goes, thinks everything is a nail.
And a computer toucher wants everything to be neatly fitting into computer programming.
Kinda like how “I’m a woman trapped inside a man’s body” is reductionist for explaining the trans femme experience and transness academically but if you want a quick snappy one liner it can deliver a simple explanation to reduce wild misunderstanding in a layman but anyone who’s a redditor will take it too far.
I take issue with the extraordinary and reductionist claim of that’s all it is, prefaced with “in all fairness” as if to will computer toucher feelings into hard irrefutable reality. It’s like when someone says “let’s be honest” to preface an opinion where it isn’t just their “honest” opinion but an implication that it should be everyone’s “honest” opinion if they are “honest” as well.
I’m not saying it isn’t on some larger scale an impossible association to make as much as I’m saying it’s presumptive and arrogant to say “in all fairness, it is” as if that’s some indisputable claim.
I could just as easily say the human brain is just a sufficiently complex series of vacuum tubes. Or gears and clockwork. Or wheels. Same reductionist summary attempt, same omission of extraordinary evidence to cover the extraordinary claim.
Don’t they also have evidence to suggest the brain pathways work in ways that we just can’t understand. I’ve seen 4th dimension processing thrown around I think to do with smell or something (quantum tunneling needed for smell to work or something physics based I can’t remember) to describe how certain process and understanding happen parallel or even before stimulus suggesting the brain can make connections in other ways than just neurons and electric current or something like that.
So like to compare the brain to a computer is completely reductionist and computer touchers love it lol.
I realise this comment is just “here’s a load of patchy second hand stuff I’ve heard misrepresented, any idea what I’m talking about cos I fucking don’t lmao” so apologies.
There’s enough that’s unclear or not yet understood for me to say that claiming “in all fairness” that the human brain is just an algorithm/meat-computer/whatever is lazy and arrogant reductionism, that’s for sure.
Someone with a hammer, as the saying goes, thinks everything is a nail.
And a computer toucher wants everything to be neatly fitting into computer programming.
It was a neat analogy for the time.
Kinda like how “I’m a woman trapped inside a man’s body” is reductionist for explaining the trans femme experience and transness academically but if you want a quick snappy one liner it can deliver a simple explanation to reduce wild misunderstanding in a layman but anyone who’s a redditor will take it too far.
I can see it being comparable.
I take issue with the extraordinary and reductionist claim of that’s all it is, prefaced with “in all fairness” as if to will computer toucher feelings into hard irrefutable reality. It’s like when someone says “let’s be honest” to preface an opinion where it isn’t just their “honest” opinion but an implication that it should be everyone’s “honest” opinion if they are “honest” as well.
speaking of 4th dimensional processing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory is pretty interesting imo
Oh it might have being this I heard getting chatted about 👀