Review: The historical context of the computer metaphor of the brain
Abstract
Popular understandings of the human brain in the twenty-first century are characterised through a computer metaphor. In this review, I situate the computer metaphor within its historical context, positioning it as the most recent incarnation of metaphors of the brain which draw upon technology. I argue that communication technology metaphors produced for the brain appear to capture its essential characteristics, due to these technologies being designed to emulate human labour.
References
Baron-Cohen, S 2003, The essential difference: The truth about the male and female brain, Basic Books, New York
Baskett, S 2000, October 23, ‘Tale of two sexes’, Herald Sun, p. 21
Bell, AJ, and Sejnowski, TJ 1997, ‘The “independent components” of natural scenes are edge filters’, Vision Research, vol. 37, no. 23, pp. 3327 – 3338
Bennett, S 2009, March 28, ‘Sorry darling, what was that?’, Herald Sun, p. 4
Borck, C 2012, Toys are us: Models and metaphors in brain research, in S Choudhury and J Slaby (Eds.), Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social cultural contexts of neuroscience, pp. 113 – 134, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester
Boykoff, MT 2007, ‘From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 477 – 489
Brooks, RA 2015, The computational metaphor, in J. Brockman (ed.), This Idea Must Die, pp. 295 – 298
Brooks, RA 2015, The computational metaphor, in J. Brockman (ed.), This idea must die, pp. 295 – 298, Harper Perennial, New York
Cahill, L 2014, ‘Equal ≠ the same: Sex differences in the human brain’, Cerebrum: The Dana Forum on Brain Science, vol. 2014, no. 5
Cue, K 2005, August 23, ‘Girlie mags right on the button’, Herald Sun, p. 18
Cummings, L 2005, October 19, ‘Girls bridge the gender gap divide HSC’, Daily Telegraph, p. 14
Dow, S 2005, December 4, ‘Men v women’, Sun Herald, p. 26
Eichenbaum, H, and Cohen, NJ 2004, From conditioning to conscious recollection: Memory systems of the brain, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Entman, RM 1993, ‘Framing: Toward crification of a fractured paradigm’, Journal of Communication, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 51 – 58
Epstein, R 2016, May 18, ‘The empty brain’, Aeon, accessed from < https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer>
Farrel, B, and Farrel, P 2001, Men are like waffles – Women are like spaghetti, Harvest House publishers, Oregon
Fine, C 2013, Neurosexism in functional neuroimaging: From scanner to pseudo-science to psyche, in M Ryan & N Branscombe (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Gender and Psychology, Sage, Thousand Oaks
Gigerenzer, G, and Goldstein, DG 1996, ‘Mind as computer: Birth of a metaphor’, Creativity Research Journal, vol. 9, no. 2 – 3, pp. 131 – 144
Haken, H 1993, Are synergetic systems (including brains) machines?, in H. Haken, A. Karlqvist, and U. Svedin (Eds.), The machine as metaphor and tool, pp. 123 – 138, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Hamlyn, DW 1968 [2002], Aristotle’s ‘De Anima’: Books II and III (with passages from book I), Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jonas, E, and Kording, KP, ‘Could a neuroscientist understand a microprocessor?’, PLoS Computational Biology, vol. 13, no. 1
Jordan-Young, R, and Rumiati, RI, 2011, ‘Hardwired for sexism? Approached to sex/gender in neuroscience’, Neuroethics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 305 – 315
McCulloch, WS, and Pitts, W 1943, ‘A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity’, The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, vol. 5, np. 4, pp. 115 – 133
Metcalf, F 2001, August 20, ‘Spot the difference’, The Courier Mail, p. 14
Midgley, C 2006, August 19, ‘Why we’re hemispheres apart’, The Australian, p. 26
Nisbet, MC, Brossard, D, and Kroepsch, A 2003, ‘Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics’, The International Journal of Press/Politics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 8 – 36
O’Connor, C, and Joffe, H 2014, ‘Gender on the brain: A case study of science communication in the new media environment’, PloS One, vol. 9, no. 10
Olausson, U 2009, ‘Global warming—global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty’, Public Understanding of Science
Otis, L 2001, Networking: Communicating with bodies and machines in the nineteenth century, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
Readfearn, G 2009, January 19, ‘Boys will be boys’, The Courier Mail, p. 36
Samuel, G, and Kitzinger, J 2013, ‘Reporting consciousness in coma: Media framing of neuro-scientific research, hope, and the response of families with relatives in vegetative and minimally conscious states’, JOMEC Journal, vol. 3, pp. 1 – 15
Sheafer, T, 2007, ‘How to evaluate it: The role of story‐evaluative tone in agenda setting and priming’, Journal of Communication, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 21 – 39
Trumbo, C 1996, ‘Constructing climate change: claims and frames in US news coverage of an environmental issue’, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 269 – 283
Unknown author 2002, August 7, ‘What’s your EQ?’, Mx (Australia), p. 25
Unknown author 2006, November 28, ‘Listen, guys, they really do talk more’, Sydney Mx
Unknown author 2007, March 17, ‘Sex and the single brain: a new light on the old gender divide’, The Canberra Times
Unknown author 2014, March 11, ‘Brains of men and women different’, The Observer (Gladstone), p. 15
Van Gorp, B 2007, ‘The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in’, Journal of Communication, vol. 57, no. 1, pp 60 – 78
Van Oost, E 2000, Making the computer masculine: The historical roots of gendered representations, in E. Balka and R. Smith (Eds.), Women, work, and computerization, pp. 9 – 16, Springer, Boston
Winston, B 2002, Media, technology and society: A history from the telegraph to the internet, Routledge, London
Winston, R 2003, February 23, ‘An instinct for sex’, Sunday Herald Sun, p. 37
Zarkadakis, G 2015, In our own image: Will artificial intelligence save or destroy us?, Ebury Press, London
