Cover not available
Part of
How Metaphors Guide, Teach and Popularize Science
Edited by Anke Beger and Thomas H. Smith
[Figurative Thought and Language 6] 2020
► pp. 263–295

Chapter 8
The brain is a computer and the mind is its program

Following a metaphor’s path from its birth to teaching philosophy decades later

 | Europa-Universität Flensburg
This chapter analyzes three stops along the life path of the influential metaphor the brain is a computer and the mind is its program. At the first two stops, the philosophers Searle, Hofstadter and Dennett argue about the literal truth of this metaphor in two academic papers. They embed the metaphor in complex metaphorical analogies, i.e., deliberate metaphors, for primarily persuasive purposes. The last stop analyzed is an academic lecture in philosophy which aims at explaining the metaphorical reasoning of the philosophers. The analysis focuses on the professor’s modifications of one of Searle’s deliberate metaphors. These modifications result in a misrepresentation of Searle’s view on the mind. Linguistic evidence indicates that this misrepresentation influences the students’ concept of the mind.
Keywords: recontextualization of metaphors, deliberate metaphors, metaphor across genres, deliberate metaphor use in academic articles, deliberate metaphor use in academic lectures
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodological and theoretical aspects
    • 2.1Steps of the analysis
    • 2.2Metaphor in language, thought, and communication
    • 2.3Recontextualization of metaphors
  • 3.Analysis: How the brain is a computer and the mind is its program is embedded and recontextualized in deliberate metaphors to argue about, and explain, views on the mind in two different academic genres
    • 3.1Searle’s metaphorical refutation of the “strong AI claim”
      • 3.1.1Searle’s first major metaphorical analogy: The Chinese Room Thought Experiment
      • 3.1.2Searle’s second major metaphorical analogy: The stomach example
    • 3.2Hofstadter and Dennett’s rebuttal of Searle’s metaphorical rejection of the strong AI claim
    • 3.3A professor’s recontextualizations of Searle’s stomach example analogy in a philosophy lecture
  • 4.Summary and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 22 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.6.08beg
References (30)
References
Beger, A. (2019). Metaphor in academic discourse: Different forms and functions in the communication of knowledge in US-American college lectures. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R. (1993). Metaphor and theory change: What is “metaphor” a metaphor for? In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition with substantial changes) (pp.481–533). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crevier, D. (1993). AI: The tumultuous history of the search for artificial intelligence. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Deignan, A., Littlemore J., & Semino, E. (2013). Figurative language, genre and register. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, R. (2016). The empty brain: Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short: Your brain is not a computer. Retrieved 6/2017 from Aeon website: [URL].Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2015a). Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future? Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 73–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b). Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 77–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. & Chen, E. (2017). Taking metaphor studies back to the Stone Age: A reply to Xu, Zhang, and Wu (2016). Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 117–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, D. R. & Dennett, D. C. (2000a). Reflections. In D. R. Hofstadter & D. C. Dennett (Eds.), The Mind’s I: Fantasies and reflections on self and soul (2nd edition) (pp.373–382). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2000b). The Mind’s I: Fantasies and reflections on self and soul. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Knudsen, S. (2003). Scientific metaphors going public. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(8), 1247–1263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krennmayr, T. (2011). Metaphor in newspapers. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., &. Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (1998a). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (1998b). Discourse across boundaries: On recontextualizations and the blending of voices in professional discourse. Text & Talk, 18, 143–157.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1980). Brains and behavior. In N. Block (Ed.), Readings in philosophy and psychology, Vol. 1 (pp.24–37). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reijnierse, W. G. (2017). The value of deliberate metaphor. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2000). Minds, brains, and programs. In D. R. Hofstadter & D. C. Dennett (Eds.), The mind’s I: Fantasies and reflections on self and soul (2nd edition) (pp.353–373). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Semino, E., Deignan A., & Littlemore, J. (2013). Metaphor, genre, and recontextualization. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 41–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23, 213–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). When is metaphor deliberate? In C. Alm-Arvius, N.-L. Johannesson, & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the 2008 Stockholm Metaphor Festival (pp.43–65). Stockholm: University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
(2015). Developing, testing and interpreting Deliberate Metaphor Theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Mixed metaphor is a question of deliberateness. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp.113–133). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2017). Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues–Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, B. J., Krennmayr T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wee, L. (2005). Constructing the source: metaphor as a discourse strategy. Discourse Studies, 7 (3), 363–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.