# How (and Why) to Think that the Brain is Literally a Computer

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.12032 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.12032/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 3 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2022.

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [A Philosophical Understanding of Representation for Neuroscience](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.06592/) (2021)
- [Analog Computation and Representation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.05965/) (2020)
- [In search for an alternative to the computer metaphor of the mind and brain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04603/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [AI and Consciousness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.09858/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The relationship between brains and computers is often taken to be merely metaphorical. However, genuine computational systems can be implemented in virtually any media; thus, one can take seriously the view that brains literally compute. But without empirical criteria for what makes a physical system genuinely a computational one, computation remains a matter of perspective, especially for natural systems (e.g., brains) that were not explicitly designed and engineered to be computers. Considerations from real examples of physical computers-both analog and digital, contemporary and historical-make clear what those empirical criteria must be. Finally, applying those criteria to the brain shows how we can view the brain as a computer (probably an analog one at that), which, in turn, illuminates how that claim is both informative and falsifiable.