This is a decades old idea and has been known to be wanting, much as the flawed notion that the brain is like a computer, when it doesn't resemble one at all.

Peter Geyer

"Comparing psychological processes to computer programs" was an idea of decades ago?

Are you talking about cognitive psychology? It's just an analogy to information processing, and it's not exactly what I said.

No actually,as consciousness component remains missing absolutely.

Sunila Deo

Without studying consciousness, the difference between people and computers is indeed conscious, and the other is unconscious."Consciousness" in the current science cannot be studied, and no one knows what it is.

How does that explain all the research on consciousness?

No. Computer is literary programmed, the human mind is much more complicated.

A few cognitive Processes may apparently seem like a computer program or AI-based program but definitely, Mind and mental processes can not be equated to a computer program. The serial processing or Parallel processing model of computer programming is fixed data fed to a computer with a particular algorithm. A prototype match or feature match by a command provided by the computer may give an appropriate answer to all the circumstances but it will never take into account context, emotional state, or complicated interplay of many factors. This is well managed by the mind and mental process which supersedes computer programs. Mental processing is far superior and different from a computer program. Thus this analogy is very far fetched

Lucia Bacal Dela Cruz

So why is the analogy between cognitive psychology and computer information processing?

Anoop Peter

So why is the analogy betwWhy does cognitive psychology have the concept of "the input, output, processing, extraction, and storage of information"? If not by analogy, then does cognitive psychology still exist?

This is a response I provided a few years ago when asked this question: *Note - my original answer included a table which cannot be properly included here so I have also uploaded a word document with my response formatted correctly*

1.

The computer metaphor of cognitive psychology (loosely) compares the basic structures and information processing styles of computers and brains in an attempt to conceptualize how the brain might work. While it is not claimed that computers and brains work in exactly the same way, there are important similarities between the two that can be helpful in understanding how the brain functions. Below is a table illustrating some of the main similarities and differences between brain and computer information processing.

Similarities and difference between computer information processing and human information processing.

*here is where the table begins*

Computer

Both

Human

Memory is explicitly limited

Encode and store information

Memory is potentially limitless

Information is processed using rigid logic

Process information via algorithms

Logic is fuzzier, less “logical”, but more flexible

Processing is done quickly but serially

Transform incoming information into something usable

Processing is done slowly but in parallel

Information storage is verbatim

Differentiate between working and long-term memory

Information storage is not verbatim

Information loss can result in a total loss of functionality

Focus on information input and output

Information loss can sometimes be beneficial

*here is where the table ends*

Similarities

Computers and human both…

- Encode and store information: Computers and humans both receive information from the outside world through devices/organs specifically designed to capture this information and this information can be stored for later use.

- Process information via algorithms: The stored information is not something that can represent a meaningful concept in and of itself. To process this information, both humans and computer must use algorithms that, when used in conjunction with the stored information, produces a meaningful outcome.

- Transform incoming information into something usable: The information that is gathered from the external world is not readily usable by a human or a computer. Instead, it must be transduced into a form that can be meaningfully used by either processor.

- Differentiate between working and long-term memory: Both humans and computers have functionally distinct types of memory. For humans, working memory is used in the processing of a small amount of information that can then be stored or used for some purpose. Long-term memory is where much greater quantities of information is stored for potential later use but is not thought to be as directly involved in information processing. Computers use a similar system. Random Access Memory (RAM) is used in making quickly available relatively small amounts of information that can then be processed directly by the computer. Read-Only Memory (ROM) is comparatively much larger than RAM but is much less effective at providing stored information rapidly for processing.

- Focus on information input and output: Both the computer and the brain (or nervous system as a whole) would be relatively useless if all they did was receiving and processing information. Instead, both are focused on receiving information relevant to a problem, processing it in a meaningful way devoted to finding a solution for that problem, and then producing an output that exercises that solution (e.g., some movement in a human, or opening up a web-browser and projecting the page on a monitor).

Differences

- Computers’ memory is limited by their hardware while the same is not true for humans: The amount of information a computer can store is directly constrained by its construction. The hardware that stores memory has separate components devoted to each individual “bit” of information and once this is full, no more information can be stores unless other information is first removed or more hardware is added. This does not seem to be the case for humans. While human memory is probably technically constrained to its physical makeup and therefore not infinitely large, memory stores seem to be functionally limitless in that, through the course of one’s life, one will never run out of room to store more information.

- Computer information processing uses rigid logic while human use fuzzier logic: Computer information processing uses strict and inflexible logical commands to process information. Examples of computer logical commands are “if/then” and “or” statements. These types of commands require that computers process unambiguous information. For example, if a computer is using two preprogramed if/then statements to decide what action to take in the presence of one of two inputs, it might look something like this: if A, then continue; if B, then reverse. If it is unclear whether the input is an A or a B, the logical operation breaks down and function is disrupted. Humans, however, seem to be extremely adept at processing ambiguous information and thus are much more flexible. It can be said that computers use more deductive logic while humans can (and maybe even primarily) use inductive and abductive logic.

- Computers process information serially while humans process in parallel: Computers (at least in a general sense) can only process one piece of information at a time (maybe not technically one piece at a time, but very few compared to humans). To make up for this, they process information extremely rapidly. What this does though is it essentially restricts the computer to a single process at any one time. A second process cannot start until the first has finished. This is no longer exactly the case, but was much more true at the time that the computer metaphor was proposed. Humans, however, seem to be able to process quite a large amount of information at once with activation spread across different areas of the brain. This means that multiple processes maybe be performed at once and can even interact with each other in a way that is not really possible in a computer.

- Computers store information in a verbatim way while humans do not: Computers can store the information that they receive exactly as they received it (barring some error). As a result, computers can then retrieve and process this information without it having degraded. Humans cannot do this. Information is always lost between perception and consolidation in long-term memory. Furthermore, information can both continue to degrade while in long-term memory and/or be altered in the process of its retrieval, ultimately resulting in some degree of incomplete/inaccurate retrieval.

- Computer information loss can result in a total loss of function while information loss may sometimes be beneficial for humans: Computers often require complete information to function correctly, whether in utilizing a file or running some software. When information is missing or “forgotten”, even just a small amount, it is possible that the computer will not be able to open a file at all, run a program at all, or simply operate at all, depending on what information was actually lost. This is not true for humans in most cases. It could be argued that a small amount of missing information may make it difficult or impossible for a person to recall something very specific, but in general humans can and do lose large amounts of information without suffering any significant loss in function. This is likely because, unlike computers, humans seem to have a complex memory structure with large amounts of redundancy in its connection such that, even if some small piece is removed, the system can still function normally. Additionally, from an emotional standpoint, it can be beneficial to not hold on to every distressful or distracting piece of information forever.

Jeffrey Hood

So, can the psychological process be compared to a computer program?

Yes, but being "comparable" is not the same as being "isometric".

In some ways it's like asking if an abacus is a computer. In many ways, absolutely. But in many equally if not more important ways, no.

There is utility in the brain/computer analogy, particularly in pedagogy. At the same time, however, if you push that analogy too far you're inviting a Diogenes to run up to you with a calculator exclaiming "Behold! A man!".

Jeffrey Hood

But cognitive psychologists and cognitive scientists have almost come up with "programs," and their books have many flow charts, flow charts of mental processes, and that's programs, just by different names. What I'm doing is to extend their cognitive science to all areas of psychology, emphasizing the "mental process" as a basic element, and build a general psychological theory, which makes sense.

Jeffrey Hood

Miller and Eugene Galanter and Karl Pribram published their seminal work, Plans andthe Structureof Behavior,the book clearly proposes the "program"

Jeffrey Hood

Almost any cognitive psychology or cognitive science textbook has a flow chart of cognitive processes, and my difference is that they use "process" rather than "program." And, they just focus on cognitive processes, not generalized to all areas of psychology. But this is just a step away, in my opinion, the "psychological program" theory is ready.

You are free to propose that theory and, honestly, if it is fruitful then I thank you for extending our understanding.

You may find difficulty in operationalizations (i.e., providing strict definitions of concepts in your theory); people have attempted to formulate theories similar to yours before and this is one of the places where they have struggled.

If you do find success investigating this theory, do let me know.