...cognitive psychology rests on the theory that the mind is a computer. — AJJ

Cognitive Psychology is the study of mental processing using a computational approach.

Michon, John A.; Jackson, Janet L.; Jorna, Rene J. 2003. Psychosemiotics: Semiotic Aspects of Psychology. Chapter 141 in Posner R.; Robering, K.; Sebeok, T. (Eds.). 2003. Handbuch der Semiotik/Handbook of Semiotics (Vol. 3, pp. 2722-2758). Berlin: W. de Gruyter.

Right. Well then my thinking is that if the mind is demonstrably not a computer - and if evolutionary psychology takes a computational approach when creating its narratives for how the mind has evolved - then narratives are all its findings can ever be.

Evolutionary psychologists just study the human mind from an evolutionary perspective, as a set of evolved capacities and faculties. Most of them (as far as I can see) follow the scientific method as other varieties of psychology. I do not see any reason why this should be considered to be a "pseudo-science" (unless only physics, biology, chemistry are the only true sciences and everything else is denigrate as non-science or pseudo-science)

It’s a study that combines evolutionary biology and cognitive psychology. Cognitive psychology takes a computational view of the mind. If the mind is demonstrably not a computer, then any narratives based cognitive psychology’s view of the mind will be neither based on empirical observation nor anything demonstrated by reason; they will simply be intriguing stories. That’s how it seems to me anyway.

I read about this first bit in Edward Feser’s Philosophy of Mind.

My limited understanding of evolutionary psychology... — AJJ

Well, that's part of the problem there. If you want to understand what Evolutionary Psychology is, the best person to ask would be an Evolutionary Psychologist, not a Christian Philosopher.

What I believe to be a bit more objective in it's explanation of Evolutionary Psychology from a philosophical point would be the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Here's a link to their article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/

In section 2 of the link, they provide the field's theoretical tenets as explained by actual evolutionary psychologists, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby. Here are the bullet points for ease of reference:

Influential evolutionary psychologists, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, provide the following list of the field’s theoretical tenets (2005):

1. The brain is a computer designed by natural selection to extract information from the environment.

2. Individual human behavior is generated by this evolved computer in response to information it extracts from the environment. Understanding behavior requires articulating the cognitive programs that generate the behavior.

3. The cognitive programs of the human brain are adaptations. They exist because they produced behavior in our ancestors that enabled them to survive and reproduce.

4. The cognitive programs of the human brain may not be adaptive now; they were adaptive in ancestral environments.

5. Natural selection ensures that the brain is composed of many different special purpose programs and not a domain general architecture.

6. Describing the evolved computational architecture of our brains “allows a systematic understanding of cultural and social phenomena” (18). — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Computers are observer-relative phenomena. Nothing is a computer unless we deem it to be so and use it to compute. In and of itself, a computer is just a bundle of materials and electrical signals; that they constitute a computer is derived from our perception and use of those things. — AJJ

Computers are a particular kind of information processor. Brains are a particular kind of information processor - an environmental sensory information processor.

The brain is a biological organ, like every other organ in our bodies, whose structure and function would be shaped by natural selection. The brain is where the mind is, so to speak, and any change to the brain produces a change in the mind, and any monist would have to agree that if natural selection shapes our bodies, it would therefore shape how our brains/minds interpret sensory information and produce better-informed behavioral responses that would improve survival and finding mates.

Dualists would be the most ardent opposition to such a theory for obvious reasons.

Well, that's part of the problem there. If you want to understand what Evolutionary Psychology is, the best person to ask would be an Evolutionary Psychologist, not a Christian Philosopher. — Harry Hindu

I said the “first bit” was from him, the bit about the mind not being a computer. The second bit is a follow on by me.

Thanks for the bullet points, good clarification.

I notice the list only mentions the brain. I can see the merit of viewing the brain as a kind of computer, but I can’t see the merit of viewing the mind as part of that computer, for the reason I’ve described. That the brain responds to stimuli in “programmed” ways I don’t find contentious; but the idea that the actions we take are programmed into us by evolution I think is pseudoscientific.

I agree with a computer being observer -dependant otherwise it is that perception of a shiny box, rather than a computer.

You would say mind is computer-relative, or, also a computer - what does mind does is not just compute. It's use however can be summed up as computation.

Because you are in control of the mind doesn't matter, that's more a matter of the vessel, not mind only.

The brain processes (computes) organic information, and the mind processes (computes) experiential and metacognitive information.

I guess its use can be summed up as computation, yeah. But that’s not to say that the mind itself is a computer. Computers do not actually compute - it’s we who do that, using computers as our tools.

I would say the brain is used by our minds to compute things. The brain isn’t doing any computing per se, just reacting to stimuli.

Mind alone is a computer more so than one that's man made - the two are symbolic of each other.

When we consider the whole vessel, then your case would stand, but when considering mind only, it is a computer. Maybe not subjectively.

I don’t think they are symbolic of one another. Computers don’t think about things, they aren’t aware of what they do, they aren’t aware of themselves.

I don’t know what you mean by “the whole vessel”.

First generation cognitive science used the metaphor of the computer to model mental processes, But since then there has been a movement away from computationalism and the computer metaphor in favor of a a more organic model of thinking processes. Newer approaches reject computationalism and even representationalism.

Ah, fair enough. I wonder then where that’s left evolutionary psychology.

it depends if you are talking about mind rawly, or if you're talking about its quididity. Which is not the state of mind we assess when making the judgement of whether it is a computer or not.



I think it can be considered an organic computer. It's computation ability is far greater than any man made!

Talking about the mind “rawly” seems to me to be the same thing as discussing its quiddity. What do you mean by “rawly”?

I could claim the quiddity of mind was me controlling it as it's part of the experience. When functioning the mind includes your experience of it, yes, but this is more a product of mind and body.

If we're discussing what mind is as an object (rawly) it's typically not our experience of mind but what we have determined mind to be. We do all experience mind but mind is not the spirit which experiences it, it's an object in the experience.

Right. So when we experience our mind as an object, what do we experience it with?

the spirit of heart and brain experiences the mind and universe.

Is this related to Hindu thought? Body, life force, mind, intellect and consciousness being what we’re made of?

From that perspective it seems to me that it is still the case that the mind is not a computer. Rather it’s the screen that our image of the world is projected on, and then our intellect is what we use to interpret those images. I guess you could call the intellect a computer then, but only because it’s being deemed as one by itself. It isn’t a computer per se, because nothing can be if computers are observer-relative.

Basically, the OP argument I described works regardless, it seems to me.

My limited understanding of evolutionary psychology is that it is a combination of evolutionary theory and cognitive psychology, and that cognitive psychology rests on the theory that the mind is a computer. If I have this right, does the above not render evolutionary psychology a pseudo-science? — AJJ

No.

Evolutionary psychology tends to treat minds and brains as black-boxes, where it seeks to explain the practical or evolutionary purpose of behaviors, not the internal mechanism that generates them. It's more behaviorism than it is neuroscience, and whether or not "the brain is a computer" is totally irrelevant to evolutionary psychology

Regarding cognitive psychology, brains do actually do calculations, but calling them "computers" is a misnomer. The fact is, we have biological neural networks in our brain that are capable of coming up with solutions to problems like "what's 10 + 10?". (and we also have biology-inspired artificial neural networks that are capable of doing the same thing).

You just seem to be intuitively rejecting the idea that the brain is a computer, and you offer objections like "computers cannot operate themselves"....

What if the mind is more complicated that "is a computer or is not a computer?" What if different parts of the brain do different kinds of things, such that one part of our brain can operate another part? (E.G: when our conscious minds want to access memories or perform a calculation, maybe it accesses other parts of the brain as if to exploit their computational ability).

No. — VagabondSpectre

OK.

Evolutionary psychology tends to treat minds and brains as black-boxes, where it seeks to explain the practical or evolutionary purpose of behaviors, not the internal mechanism that generates them. It's more behaviorism than it is neuroscience, and whether or not "the brain is a computer" is totally irrelevant to evolutionary psychology — VagabondSpectre

If you look at Harry Hindu’s post above you’ll see that the first tenet of evolutionary psychology according to “Influential evolutionary psychologists, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby” is:

The brain is a computer designed by natural selection to extract information from the environment.

So according to you their first tenet is irrelevant to their study.

Regarding cognitive psychology, brains do actually do calculations, but calling them "computers" is a misnomer. The fact is, we have biological neural networks in our brain that are capable of coming up with solutions to problems like "what's 10 + 10?". (and we also have biology-inspired artificial neural networks that are capable of doing the same thing). — VagabondSpectre

The brain doesn’t do calculations for the same reason computers don’t. It’s all electrical signals, and electrical signals are just that - electrical signals. It’s only in our minds that they mean anything.

You just seem to be intuitively rejecting the idea that the brain is a computer, and you offer objections like "computers cannot operate themselves".... — VagabondSpectre

I haven’t rejected that. I’ve explicitly said otherwise.

What if the mind is more complicated that "is a computer or is not a computer?" What if different parts of the brain do different kinds of things, such that one part of our brain can operate another part? (E.G: when our conscious minds want to access memories or perform a calculation, maybe it accesses other parts of the brain as if to exploit their computational ability). — VagabondSpectre

Eh? I don’t see how this addresses the OP.

I don’t actually want this kind of argument so I’d just like to draw a line under this now.

Dualists would be the most ardent opposition to such a theory for obvious reasons. — Harry Hindu

The Stanford entry you quote does go on to mention, as it had already stated at the outset, that 'there is a broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise.' These allegations of flaws are not necessarily expressed ardently, but they are powerful. Many of them come from people who believe that evolutionary biology provides a more secure basis for scientific progress and that evolutionary psychology bears the heavy weight of biasses that its practitioners hold.

The brain is a computer designed by natural selection to extract information from the environment.


So according to you their first tenet is irrelevant to their study. — AJJ

Assuming that the brain or the mind (as yet undefined in this thread) is or is not a "computer", and whatever that might mean, is not necessary to approach psychology through the lens of adaptive utility-based selection. Evolutionary psychology tries to explain how or why certain traits and behaviors are useful, which explains why they evolved the way they did. You can quote some random psychologist all you like, but the answer to your question is contained in the title of the field: 'evolutionary' psychology.

The brain doesn’t do calculations for the same reason computers don’t. It’s all electrical signals, and electrical signals are just that - electrical signals. It’s only in our minds that they mean anything. — AJJ

Calculators send signals back and forth and they're just bundles of material. Do they not do calculations? If not, why do we call them calculators?

If you think you can fully separate the mind from the brain then your work is cut out for you. The mind is a representation of brain-happenings, so if it happens in the mind, it must somehow also be represented in the state or states of the brain. As the brain "computes", so too does the mind.

Eh? I don’t see how this addresses the OP.

I don’t actually want this kind of argument so I’d just like to draw a line under this now. — AJJ

That's fine, but you're making the claim that the mind is not a computer, so I'm not sure why would not expect cursory resistance to that claim. You haven't bothered to define "computer" or "mind" or "brain", and personally I'm not interested in whether or not your claims undermine the field of evolutionary psychology (it's a tertiary issue raised on a misconception). I'm interested in whether or not the claims you've made about minds and brains are sound or valid. If brains actually do perform calculations (if they do compute), where does that leave the rest of your claims?

There also seems to be some underlying thrust hidden behind the claims that the mind/brain does not compute, and that evolutionary psychology is therefore useless or a pseudo-science. What are you trying to imply? What did evolutionary psychology ever do to you?

Computers are observer-relative phenomena. Nothing is a computer unless we deem it to be so and use it to compute. In and of itself, a computer is just a bundle of materials and electrical signals; that they constitute a computer is derived from our perception and use of those things.

It follows from the above that the mind cannot be a computer. If we deem our minds to be computers, we are doing this with our minds. The mind is always a step beyond the designation of “computer”. — AJJ

Rather a Buddhist style of argument.

Yeah I’ve noticed that; when applied to everything it leads to an “everything is one” conclusion. Although I’ve thought in passing that appealing to final causes gets you away from that conclusion, and computers only have their final causes through us.

I have consulted several textbooks on Human evolutionary psychology - none of them stipulates that the mind has to be studied as a "computational" device. And if this expression is used, it is more of a metaphor than a corner-stone of this topic. Psychologists know that our mind is not literally a computer.

The Stanford page Harry Hindu linked to above contains this:

Our cognitive architecture is composed of computational devices, that are innate and are adaptations (cf. Samuels 1998; Samuels et al. 1999a; Samuels et al. 1999b; Samuels 2000)

That seems quite plain to me, although I admit I haven’t read all of that page.

I would say the brain is used by our minds to compute things. — AJJ

The relationship which obtains between brain and mind is one of correlation, not causation. However, you are free to cite credible scientific research to the contrary.

The brain isn’t doing any computing per se, just reacting to stimuli. — AJJ

In its most general sense, a computer is an input-output processor.
Brains receive exogenous and/or endogenous neural signals from sense organs (input), perform sensory processing at relevant locations, and produce environmental or corporeal state perception (output).

The relationship which obtains between brain and mind is one of correlation, not causation. However, you are free to cite credible scientific research to the contrary. — Galuchat

I haven’t said brain activity and what happens in our minds don’t correlate. I’m saying computations are done in the mind, by using what the brain does for us.

In its most general sense, a computer is an input-output processor.
Brains receive exogenous and/or endogenous neural signals from sense organs (input), perform sensory processing at relevant locations, and produce environmental or corporeal state perception (output). — Galuchat

I agree with this. Does it contradict what I said?

I should clarify that what I’m saying is computers do not compute. In and of themselves, they are just matter, bundled together and behaving a certain way. That they can be said to be computing anything is a concept derived from our minds; from our perception and designation of what it is they’re doing. Computers do not compute; rather we compute, often using computers as our tools to do so.