How do scientists criticize the computer metaphor of the brain?

References

1. Boyd, R.
   (1993) Metaphor and Theory Change: What is “Metaphor” and Metaphor for?InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition, pp.481–532). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.023
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.023 [Google Scholar]
2. Camp, E.
   (2020) Imaginative frames in scientific inquiry. Metaphors, telling facts, and just-so stories. InA. Levy & P. Godfrey-Smith (Eds.), The Scientific Imagination (pp.304–336). Oxford. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190212308.003.0014
   https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190212308.003.0014 [Google Scholar]
3. Cisek, P.
   (1999) Beyond the Computer Metaphor: Behavior as Interaction. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11–12, 125–142.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Di Paolo, E. A., Buhrmann, T., & Barandiaran, X. E.
   (2017) Sensorimotor Life. An Enactive Proposal. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198786849.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198786849.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
5. Faye, J.
   (2016) The Nature of Scientific Thinking: On Interpretation, Explanation and Understanding. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillian.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Finsen, A. B., Steen, G., & Wagemans, J. H. M.
   (2019) An Argumentative Reconstruction of the Computer Metaphor of the Brain. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(3), 317–335. 10.1075/jaic.18019.fin
   https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18019.fin [Google Scholar]
7. Gallagher, S.
   (2017) Enactivist Interventions. Rethinking the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198794325.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794325.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
8. Govier, T.
   (2010a) A Practical Study of Argument (7th edition). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Jansen, H.
   (2016) The strategic formulation of abductive arguments in everyday reasoning. InP. Bondy & L. Benacquista (Eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (pp.1–10) Windsor: Scholarship at UWindsor.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Käufer, S. & Chemero, A.
    (2015) Phenomenology: An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Kiverstein, J. D., & Rietveld, E.
    (2018) Reconceiving representation-hungry cognition: an ecological-enactive proposal. Adaptive Behavior, 26(4), 147–163. 10.1177/1059712318772778
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712318772778 [Google Scholar]
12. Kövecses, Z.
    (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Krein, K. & Ilundáin-Agurruza, J.
    (2017) High-level Enactive and Embodied Cognition in Expert Sport Performance. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 11:3, 370–384. 10.1080/17511321.2017.1334004
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2017.1334004 [Google Scholar]
14. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Piccinini, Gualtiero
    (2009) Computationalism in the Philosophy of Mind. Philosophy Compass, 4, 515–532. 10.1111/j.1747‑9991.2009.00215.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00215.x [Google Scholar]
16. Piccinini, G. & Scarantino, A.
    (2011) Information Processing, Computation and Cognition. Journal of Biological Physics, 37, 1–38. 10.1007/s10867‑010‑9195‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10867-010-9195-3 [Google Scholar]
17. Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krenmayr, T., & Steen, G.
    (2015) How Viruses and Beasts Affect our Opinions (or not). The Role of Extendedness in Metaphorical Framing. Metaphor and the Social World, 5:2, 245–263. 10.1075/msw.5.2.04rei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.2.04rei [Google Scholar]
18. Sangoi, M.
    (2014) Features and Functions of Scientific Metaphor. InF. Ervas, & M. Sangoi (Eds.), Isonomia – Epistemologica Volume 5, special issue on Metaphor and Argumentation (pp.25–38). Urbino: University of Urbino.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Shiyang, Y. & Zenker, F.
    (2018) Peirce knew why abduction isn’t IBE – A scheme and critical questions for abductive argument. Argumentation, 32, 569–587. 10.1007/s10503‑017‑9443‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9443-9 [Google Scholar]
20. Steen, G.
    (2013) Deliberate Metaphor Affords Conscious Metaphorical Cognition. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 1–2, 179–197.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Steen, G.
    (2017) Deliberate Metaphor Theory. Basic Assumptions, Main Tenets, Urgent Issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14, 1–24. 10.1515/ip‑2017‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0001 [Google Scholar]
22. Thagard, P.
    (1978) The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice. Journal of Philosophy, 75, 76–92. 10.2307/2025686
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2025686 [Google Scholar]
23. Thompson, E.
    (2007) Mind in Life. Phenomenology, Biology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Van Eemeren, F. H.
    (2010) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
25. Van Eemeren, F. H.
    (2018) Argumentative Patterns Viewed from a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. InF. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context (pp.7–30). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.11.02van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.02van [Google Scholar]
26. Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans
    (2014) Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Van Eemeren, F. H. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    (2016) Argumentation: Analysis and Evaluation (2nd edition). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315401140
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315401140 [Google Scholar]
28. Van Gelder, Tim
    (1995) What might cognition be if not computation?Journal of Philosophy92 (7):345–81. 10.2307/2941061
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2941061 [Google Scholar]
29. Walton, D.
    (2001) Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic, 21, 141–169. 10.22329/il.v21i2.2241
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v21i2.2241 [Google Scholar]
30. Walton, D.
    (2004) Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Wheeler, M.
    (2005) Reconstructing the cognitive world. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5824.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5824.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
32. Wagemans, J. H. M.
    (2016a) Analyzing Metaphor in Argumentative Discourse. Rivista Italiana di Filoso a del Linguaggio, 10, 79–94.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Wagemans, J. H. M.
    (2016b) Argumentative Patterns for Justifying Scientific Explanations. Argumentation, 30, 97–108. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9374‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9374-2 [Google Scholar]
34. Wagemans, J. H. M.
    (2016c) Criteria for Deciding what is the ‘Best’ Scientific Explanation. InD. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015 (pp.43–54). London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Zarefsky, D.
    (2006) Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation, 20(4), 399–416. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9030‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9030-6 [Google Scholar]