In every age, philosophers have compared the human mind to the latest technological gizmo. Currently we use computers as models of our minds. Seventy-five years ago, our minds were compared to telephone switchboards. In the 19th Century minds were compared to telegraph machines. In the 17th Century minds were compared to hydraulic machines. This pattern goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks, who compared the mind to a catapult, because the mind “throws you” from one idea to the next. In another couple of centuries, the idea that the mind is comparable to a computer will seem as quaint as the idea that the mind is comparable to a catapult.
I would say it is an argument. The claim that the computer analogy will turn out to be quint is a controversial claim, an the author is trying to garner support for it by pointing to past analogies, saying that what they all have in common is the comparison to whatever the latest gizmo is.
The argument is thus an inductive argument: Given that several times in the past we have compared the mind to the latest gizmo at that time, only to be shown wrong at some later time, we conclude that the same thing will happen to the latest comparison (which is with a computer).
As premises, you can take each of the past comparisons (telephone, telegraph, hydraulic machines, catapult), and you can have them either directly go to the conclusion (computer analogy will be wrong too), or have an intermediate result: "the mind will always (mistakenly) be compared to latest gizmo", and then draw the conclusion (computer analogy will be wrong too) from there