The article cautions against overusing metaphors in scientific explanations, using the brain-computer analogy as an example to show how such abstractions can conceal information and may be historically limited.
# Beware overreliance on metaphor
Source: [https://evnm.substack.com/p/beware-overreliance-on-metaphor](https://evnm.substack.com/p/beware-overreliance-on-metaphor)
Metaphor is a helpful technique for explaining things\. A good way to help someone understand a new concept is to liken it to something that the person already understands\.
Explaining what voltage is? Use the tried and true method of analogizing it to water pressure\. Electrons are “pushed” through a wire in a way reminiscent of how water is pushed through a pipe\.
It’s important to not become*over*reliant on metaphor\. A metaphor is an abstraction that hooks onto something familiar in order to provide a foothold for understanding\. But abstractions necessarily hide information\.
I think about this whenever someone on a podcast says something like “consciousness is just computation performed by the brain”\.
A computer is a compelling metaphor for how brains seem to process information\. Neurons exchange electrical and chemical signals in response to stimuli, and our latest computing systems emulate these processes to great effect\. But to explain the brain as “a computer” feels circular\. It’s a map being used as shorthand for a territory\.
And computation is only the most recent in a long series of maps used to explain the territory of the brain\. Before computers, people saw the brain as an intricate telegraph network relaying signals\. Before that, it was a clockwork mechanism\. René Descartes was big on this in the 17th century, likening some aspects of brain function to clocks and machines, others to[hydraulics and fluid flows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloonist_theory)\.
I find this history of using $CURRENT\_THING as a metaphor for how the brain works humbling\. On the one hand, it shows how scientific understanding and technology have progressed in concert over the centuries\. But it also makes claims of the brain being a computer seem kind of arrogant\. Who’s to say that this isn’t as partial an understanding as Descartes’?
#### Discussion about this post
### Ready for more?
A computer scientist argues that the term 'A.I.' is misleading and dangerous, advocating for viewing AI as a tool rather than a mythical creature to avoid mismanagement and potential harm.
This article critiques the exaggerated hype around recent AI events, such as breakthrough claims and security incidents, showing how expert scrutiny often reveals more subdued realities than the initial press coverage suggests.
The article explores the limitations of human cognition—such as holding only about four items in working memory—and how these constraints shape software engineering, arguing that many 'human errors' are actually design failures.
A brief opinion piece questioning whether reliance on AI for software development leads to skill atrophy among engineers, potentially creating a plateau in AI progress until recursive self-improvement becomes possible.