The Computer Between the Ears

[boulderjohn]

Whether or not a technical diver should use a computer is still a hot topic for many people. I posted an opinion here that some might find interesting.

 

[KeithG]

Whether or not a technical diver should use a computer is still a hot topic for many people. I posted an opinion here that some might find interesting.

"Why would you want to use a dive computer when you have a perfectly good computer between your ears?"

The above statement makes an assumption that is clearly incorrect: the human brain is incredible, and highly unreliable...

 

[Blasto]

If you have a computer between your ears, why not resolve the debate simply by benchmarking the computer between your ears against the processor in your dive computer? It's how things are done in the computer world.

 

[NYHippo]

Frankly, and I know I will get flamed, I would never dive without one. Actually, two. It helps keep me safe, allows me to use multiple gas mixes during a dive and not have to think about it. Does that mean I am totally reliant on them, no. In my pocket is a set of tables I have run that should get me out of the water safely in the unlikely event that both computers die, which I have built using computer software running the same algorithm as my computers. So, really just another computer.

 

[wheeledgoat]

I applaud you, sir, for so eloquently bringing to light the limitations of our meat-brains. Perhaps more important to recognize is our innate resistance to admitting just how unreliable our brains are. It is an atrocity that our legal system gives so much credence to eyewitness testimony. I can only hope that articles like yours get circulated until we all realize that NO - our brains are not "computers". They are compartments of meat, just like our bodies.

It's also very revealing to point out that our tendency to equate our brains with computers is very cultural, and very recent. Not long ago, we compared our brains to steam engines and gear-driven machines. Of all these comparisons are equally inaccurate. I think "meat bag" is the most accurate analog so far. We would do well to trust our brains only as much as we would a bag of meat.

 

[Wookie]

Yeah, I gotta go with the inaccuracy of the human brain. The same human brain who has said on this very forum "I want the least conservative computer". Why do you want a computer that lies to you? Just go diving.

 

[Kevrumbo]

Learning, knowing and memorizing what a particular deco schedule is going to be after so many iterations of the same range of depth profiles over years of experience, an actively diving and veteran Tech & Overhead Diver can function well with just a digital bottom timer, SPG and wetnotes of contingency profiles and tables.

Where the current technology Dive Computer really has the greatest utility now is for the beginning to novice Technical Diver, where vital practice and experience by rote is just starting to be accumulated and learned. There's nothing wrong with promoting the "Thinking Diver" and not to "blindly follow your computer", but IMHO there should always be a side-by-side option to revert to a dive computer next to referencing a bottom timer as needed for the beginner technical diver.

 

[tridacna]

Great article John.

 

[doctormike]

Terrific article, John... I totally agree.

The human brain is an incredible computer, but it's pretty silly that we compare it to a dive computer and argue about which is "better". They are completely different mechanisms that excel in some tasks, and fail at others.

There is no way that my brain (or the brains of the best divers in the world) can accurately track a complex dive profile curve over time and depth and continuously generate an ascent schedule with anywhere near the accuracy of the cheapest Mares Puck on eBay. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect my Petrel to write a sonnet, or even one of these posts.

They are different tools for different tasks, and I think that a dive computer is the best tool for managing decompression on the fly. Sure, I back that up with a written plan for tech diving, but that's with the understanding that if I have to do that, I'm probably going to be in the water a lot longer than necessary.

 

[dmaziuk]

... our brains are not "computers". They are compartments of meat, just like our bodies.

I'm told they're more like fat, actually.

@boulderjohn: I find the concept of "it is possible for a computer to make an error ... so you can never trust one" interesting in that we generally accept e.g. that people lie, but we're still willing to live with them. I.e. we are normally operate in an imperfect world guided by at best incomplete information -- yet the computer must be perfect or else it's useless.

This isn't specific to dive computers, BTW, e.g. how many people drive into ditches because their GPS computer says there is a road there? (Or maybe it's just what they tell the insurance company afterwards, but I'm a firm believer in Hanlon's razor.)

That I think is the flip side of the same phenomenon: computer must be perfect therefore computer is right. Evidence of our own eyes notwithstanding.