Matthew Cobb’s book The Idea of the Brain notes that the brain has historically been analogized to a hydraulic system, or to a telegraph network, or to a telephone exchange; today it’s often analogized to a supercomputer; and in the future, who knows. His suggested takeaway is: neuroscientists have never known how to think about the brain, and are grasping at straws.
But that’s the wrong takeaway. The brain is a machine that runs an algorithm. Many people throughout history have grasped that idea, at least intuitively. And they’ve tried to explain that idea by analogizing the brain to other machines that can run algorithms, of which there are many: clockwork, hydraulics, telephone exchanges, silicon chips, and more. All the analogies through the ages are pointing to a single, consistent, profound truth.
I’ve seen a similar claim, or possibly the same claim. The claim was humans just compare the brain to what ever is the newest cool tech, which is clearly not true. Once airplain was the newest coolest tech, and no-one said the brain was an airplain, and same for lots of other tech.
As you say, there is a clear trend of what tech we use as methaphor for the brain.
I’ve seen a similar claim, or possibly the same claim. The claim was humans just compare the brain to what ever is the newest cool tech, which is clearly not true. Once airplain was the newest coolest tech, and no-one said the brain was an airplain, and same for lots of other tech.
As you say, there is a clear trend of what tech we use as methaphor for the brain.