Why the brain is not a computer, and why it matters for science and politics
Francesco P. Battaglia
Contemporary neuroscience is methodologically flourishing. Over recent decades, researchers have developed remarkable tools to record, manipulate and analyse neural activity. Yet despite this technical progress, Battaglia argues that the field remains conceptually constrained. The dominant framework—rooted in cybernetics, computer science and artificial intelligence—understands the brain as a computational system that processes information, performs statistical inference and optimises behaviour.
The Brain–Computer Analogy and Its Implications
This computational model may appear neutral and purely scientific. However, Battaglia suggests that it carries significant philosophical and political implications. If the brain is understood primarily as an information-processing device, human beings risk being reduced to algorithmic systems. Such a framework not only supports claims that machines might replicate or replace human cognition, but also mirrors economic models centred on optimisation, competition and utility maximisation.
In his NIAS project, Battaglia examines how concepts such as “information”, “computation” and “optimisation” entered neuroscience and continue to shape research agendas, funding structures and public discourse. Scientific metaphors are never merely descriptive; they influence how we understand ourselves and the social world we inhabit.
Beyond Computation: The Brain as Living, Historical Matter
Battaglia explores alternative conceptual foundations inspired by evolutionary biology, autopoiesis and embodied cognition. These approaches view the brain not as a disembodied algorithm but as a living, historically formed material system.
From this perspective, behaviour does not arise from solving predefined computational problems. Rather, it emerges from the dynamic constraints and possibilities of living matter, shaped by evolutionary and individual histories. Rethinking the brain in this way would not only reshape neuroscience as a discipline, but also open space for different understandings of human nature and social organisation.
Why This Debate Matters
Battaglia’s fellowship has now come to an end, but the questions he raises remain pressing. What kind of science should neuroscience aspire to be? And what forms of society are reflected—and reinforced—by the metaphors we use to describe the mind?
