# The brain is a computer is a brain: neuroscience's internal debate and the social significance of the Computational Metaphor

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.14042 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.14042/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 1 of its 58 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Jul 2021.

## Builds on (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Towards decolonising computational sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.14258/) (2020)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [(Un)making AI Magic: a Design Taxonomy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.15216/) (2024)
- [Should attention be all we need? The epistemic and ethical implications of unification in machine learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.08377/) (2022)
- [Not Minds, but Signs: Reframing LLMs through Semiotics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.17080/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The Computational Metaphor, comparing the brain to the computer and vice versa, is the most prominent metaphor in neuroscience and artificial intelligence (AI). Its appropriateness is highly debated in both fields, particularly with regards to whether it is useful for the advancement of science and technology. Considerably less attention, however, has been devoted to how the Computational Metaphor is used outside of the lab, and particularly how it may shape society's interactions with AI. As such, recently publicized concerns over AI's role in perpetuating racism, genderism, and ableism suggest that the term "artificial intelligence" is misplaced, and that a new lexicon is needed to describe these computational systems. Thus, there is an essential question about the Computational Metaphor that is rarely asked by neuroscientists: whom does it help and whom does it harm? This essay invites the neuroscience community to consider the social implications of the field's most controversial metaphor.