Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short: your brain is not a computer

the-podcast guy recently linked this essay, its old, but i don't think its significantly wrong (despite gpt evangelists) also read weizenbaum, libs, for the other side of the coin

  • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]
    ·
    6 months ago

    (1) a computer is anything which physically implements algorithms in order to solve computable functions.
    (2) an algorithm is a finite set of instructions that can be followed mechanically, with no insight required, in order to give some specific output for a specific input.
    (3) the specific input and output states in the definition of an algorithm and the arbitrary relationship b/w the physical observables of the system and computational states are specified by us because of our intelligence,which is the result of…wait for it…the execution of an algorithm (in the brain).
    Notice the circularity? The process of specifying the inputs and outputs needed in the definition of an algorithm, are themselves defined by an algorithm!! This process is of course a product of our intelligence/ability to learn — you can’t specify the evolution of a physical CMOS gate as a logical NAND if you have not learned what NAND is already, nor capable of learning it in the first place. And any attempt to describe it as an algorithm will always suffer from the circularity.

    This is a rather silly argument. People hear about certain logical fallacies and build cargo cults around them. They are basically arguing 'but how can conscious beings process their perception of material stuff if their consciousness is tied to material things???', or 'how can we learn about our bodies if we need our bodies to learn about them in the first place? Notice the circularity!!!'.
    The last sentence there is a blatant non sequitur. They provide literally no reasoning for why a thing wouldn't be able to learn stuff about itself using algorithms.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
      ·
      6 months ago

      This whole discussion is becoming more and more frustrating bc it's clear that most of the people arguing against the brain as computer don't grasp what metaphor is, have a rigid understanding of what computers are and cannot flex that understanding it to use it as a helpful basis of comparsion, and apparently have just never heard of or encountered systems theory?

      Like a lot of these articles are going "nyah nyah nyah the mind can't be software running on brain hardware that's duaism you're actually doing magic just like us!" And it's like my god how are you writing about science and you've never encountered the idea of complex systems arising from the execution of simple rules? Like put your pen down and go play Conway's Game of Life for a minute and shut up about algorithms and logic gates bc you clearly can't even see the gaping holes in your own understanding of what is being discussed.

      • TraumaDumpling
        ·
        6 months ago

        literally read anything about a Turing Machine because you are comically misunderstanding these articles.

    • TraumaDumpling
      ·
      6 months ago

      please read the entire article, you are literally not understanding the text. the following directly addresses your argument.

      “an algorithm is a finite set of instructions that can be followed mechanically, with no insight required, in order to give some specific output for a specific input.” Now if we assume that the input and output states are arbitrary and not specified, then time evolution of any system becomes computing it’s time-evolution function, with the state at every time t becoming the input for the output state at time (t+1), and hence too broad a definition to be useful. If we want to narrow the usage of the word computers to systems like our laptops, desktops, etc., then we are talking about those systems in which the input and output states are arbitrary (you can make Boolean logic work with either physical voltage high or low as Boolean logic zero, as long you find suitable physical implementations) but are clearly specified (voltage low=Boolean logic zero generally in modern day electronics), as in the intuitive definition of an algorithm….with the most important part being that those physical states (and their relationship to the computational variables) are specified by us!!! All the systems that we refer to as modern day computers and want to restrict our usage of the word computers to are in fact our created by us(or our intelligence to be more specific), in which we decide what are the input and output states. Take your calculator for example. If you wanted to calculate the sum of 3 and 5 on it, it is your interpretation of the pressing of the 3,5,+ and = buttons as inputs, and the number that pops up on the LED screen as output is what allows you interpret the time evolution of the system as a computation, and imbues the computational property to the calculator. Physically, nothing about the electron flow through the calculator circuit makes the system evolution computational.

      • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]
        ·
        6 months ago

        please read the entire article, you are literally not understanding the text.

        Unless the author redefines the words used in the bit that you quoted from them, I addressed their argument just fine.
        In the case the author does redefine those words, then the bit that you quoted is literally meaningless unless you also quote the parts where the author defines the relevant words.

        “an algorithm is a finite set of instructions that can be followed mechanically, with no insight required, in order to give some specific output for a specific input.”

        The author is just arbitrarily placing on algorithms the requirement that they 'can be followed mechanically, with no insight required'. This is silly for a few reasons.
        Firstly, that's not how algorithms are defined in mathematics, nor is that how they are understood in the context of relevant analogies. Going to just ignore the 'mechanically' part, as the author seems to not be explaining what they meant, and my interpretations are all broad enough to conclude that the author is obviously incorrect.
        Secondly, brains perform various actions without any sort of insight required. This part should be obvious.
        Thirdly, the author's problem is that computers usually work without some sort of introspection into how they perform their tasks, and that nobody builds computers that inefficiently access some random parts of memory vaguely related to their tasks. The introspection part is just incorrect, and the point about the fact that we don't make hardware and software that does inefficient 'insight' has no bearing on the fact that computers that do those things can be built and that they are still computers.

        The author is deeply unserious.

        Now if we assume that the input and output states are arbitrary and not specified, then time evolution of any system becomes computing it’s time-evolution function, with the state at every time t becoming the input for the output state at time (t+1), and hence too broad a definition to be useful

        If their problem is that the analogy is not insightful, then fine. However, their thesis seems to be that the analogy is not applicable well enough, which is different from that.

        If we want to narrow the usage of the word computers to systems like our laptops, desktops, etc.

        Okay, so their thesis is not that the computer analogy is inapplicable, but that we do not work exactly the way PCs work? Sure.
        I don't know why they had to make bad arguments regarding algorithms, though.

        you can make Boolean logic...

        There is no such thing as 'Boolean logic'. There is 'Boolean algebra', which is an algebraisation of logic.
        The author also seems to assume that computers can only work with classical logic, and not any other sort of logic, for which we can implement suitable algebraisations.

        with the most important part being that those physical states (and their relationship to the computational variables) are specified by us!!!

        This is silly. The author is basically saying 'but all computers are intelligently made by us'. Needless to say, they are deliberately misunderstanding what computers are and are placing arbitrary requirements for something to be considered a computer.

        All the systems that we refer to as modern day computers and want to restrict our usage of the word computers to

        Who is this 'we'?

        Again, the author is deeply unserious.

        • TraumaDumpling
          ·
          6 months ago

          Unless the author redefines the words used in the bit that you quoted from them, I addressed their argument just fine.

          so you aren't going to read the article then.

          No Investigation, No Right to Speak.

          Here follows some selections from the article that deal with exactly the issues you focus on.

          I strongly advise reading the entire article, and the two it is in response to, and furthermore reading about what a Turing Machine actually is and what it can be used to analyze.

          The debate on whether the brain is a computer or not seems to have died down given the recent success of computer science ideas in both neuroscience and machine learning. I have seen a few recent articles on this subject from scientists, who have made strong claims that the brain is in fact literally a computer, and not just a useful metaphor backed up with their reasons to believe so. One such article is this one by Dr. Blake Richards (and here is another one by Dr. Mark Humphries). I will mainly deal with the first one — a really good and extensive article. I would encourage readers to go through it slowly, and in detail for it provides a good look at how to think about what a computer is, and deals well with a lot of the weaker arguments brought against the ‘brain is a computer’ claim (like the ones here.) Dr. Richards addressed a good variety of objections that people might rise to the claim that “the brain is a computer” towards the end of his article. I will raise an argument here that I feel lies at the heart of this discussion, not addressed in the post and is often overlooked or dismissed as non-existent. The reason I think it is important to discuss this question (and/or objection) in detail is that I strongly believe it affects how we study the brain. Describing the brain like a computer allows for a useful computational picture that has been very successful in the fields of neuroscience and artificial intelligence (specifically the sub-area of machine learning over the recent past). However as an engineer interested in building intelligent systems, I think this view of the brain as a computer is beginning to hurt us in our ability to engineer systems that can efficiently emulate their capabilities over a wide range of tasks.

          the bolded part above is 'why the author has a problem with the computer metaphor' since you seem so confused by that.

          There are a few minor/major problems (depends on how you look at it) in the definitions used to get to the conclusion that the brain is in fact a computer. Using the definitions put forward in the blog post —

          (1) an algorithm is anything a Turing machine can do, (2) computable functions are defined as those functions that we have algorithms for, (3) a computer is anything which physically implements algorithms in order to solve computable functions.

          these are the definitions the author is using, not ones he made up but ones he got from one of the articles he is arguing against. note the similarities with the definitions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm :

          One informal definition is "a set of rules that precisely defines a sequence of operations",[11][need quotation to verify] which would include all computer programs (including programs that do not perform numeric calculations), and (for example) any prescribed bureaucratic procedure[12] or cook-book recipe.[13] In general, a program is an algorithm only if it stops eventually[14]—even though infinite loops may sometimes prove desirable. Boolos, Jeffrey & 1974, 1999 define an algorithm to be a set of instructions for determining an output, given explicitly, in a form that can be followed by either a computing machine, or a human who could only carry out specific elementary operations on symbols.[15]

          note the triviality criticism of the informal definition that this author previously addressed, and the 'human who could only carry out specific elementary operation on symbols' is a reference to Turing Machines and the Chinese Room thought experiment, both of which i recommend reading about.

          The concept of algorithm is also used to define the notion of decidability—a notion that is central for explaining how formal systems come into being starting from a small set of axioms and rules. In logic, the time that an algorithm requires to complete cannot be measured, as it is not apparently related to the customary physical dimension. From such uncertainties, that characterize ongoing work, stems the unavailability of a definition of algorithm that suits both concrete (in some sense) and abstract usage of the term.

          this is still a matter under academic discussion, there are not widely agreed on definitions of these terms that suit all uses in all fields.

          Most algorithms are intended to be implemented as computer programs. However, algorithms are also implemented by other means, such as in a biological neural network (for example, the human brain implementing arithmetic or an insect looking for food), in an electrical circuit, or in a mechanical device.

          algorithms can be implemented by humans, intentionally or not, the hardware is irrelevant to the discussion of Turing machines since they are an idealized abstraction of computing.

          enough wikipedia now back to the article

          Number (3) is the one we will focus on for it is vitally important. To complete those definitions, I will go ahead an introduce from the same blog post, an intuitive definition of algorithm — “ an algorithm is a finite set of instructions that can be followed mechanically, with no insight required, in order to give some specific output (e.g. an answer to yes/no integer roots) for a specific input (e.g. a specific polynomial like 6x³yz⁴ + 4y²z + z — 9).” And the more technical definition of algorithm in (1) as “ An algorithm is anything that a Turing machine can do.” This equivalence of course arises since attempts to achieve the intuitive definition about following instructions mechanically can always be reduced to a Turing machine. The author of the post recognizes that under this definition, any physical system can be said to be ‘computing’ it’s time evolution function and the meaning of the word loses it’s importance /significance. In order to avoid that, he subscribes to Wittgenstein and suggests that since when we think about modern day computers, we are thinking about machines like our laptops, desktops, phones which achieve extremely powerful and useful computation, we should hence restrict the word computers to these type of systems (hint: the problem is right here!!). Since our brains also achieve the same, we find that our brains are (uber) computers as well (I might be simplifying/shortening the argument, but I believe I have captured it’s essence and will once again recommend reading the complete article here.) Furthermore, he points out that our modern day computers and brains, have the capability of being Turing complete, but are not of course due to physical constraints on memory, time and energy expenditure. And if we do not have a problem with calling our non-Turing complete, von Neumann architecture machines as computers, then we should not let the physical constraints that prevent the brain from being Turing complete stop us from calling it a computer as well. I agree that we should not restrict ourselves to only referring to Turing complete systems as computers, for that is far too restrictive. The term ‘computer’ does have a popular usage and meaning in everyday life that is independent on whether or not the system is Turing complete. It makes a lot more sense to instead refer to those computers that are in fact Turing complete as ‘Turing complete computers’.

          this explains the author's reasoning for their definitions further, he is not making these up, these are the common definitions in use in the discourse.

          • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]
            ·
            6 months ago

            so you aren't going to read the article then.
            No Investigation, No Right to Speak.

            I have investigated the parts that you have quoted, and that is what I am weighing-in on.. They are self-contained enough for me to weigh-in, unless the author just redefines the words elsewhere, in which case not quoting those parts as well just means that you are deliberately posting misleading quotes.

            I strongly advise reading the entire article

            From the parts already quoted, it seems that the author is clueless and is willing to make blatantly faulty arguments. The fact that you opted to quote those parts of the article and not the others indicates to me that the rest of the article is not better in this regard.

            and furthermore reading about what a Turing Machine actually is and what it can be used to analyze

            Firstly, the term 'Turing machine' did not come up in this particular chain of comments up to this point. The author literally never referred to it. Why is it suddenly relevant?
            Secondly, what exactly do you think I, as a person with a background in mathematics, am missing in this regard that a person who says 'Boolean logic' is not?

            (1) an algorithm is anything a Turing machine can do

            This contradicts the previous two definitions the author gave.

            (2) computable functions are defined as those functions that we have algorithms for

            Whether we know of such an algorithm is actually irrelevant, actually. For a function to be computable, such an algorithm merely has to exist, even if it is undiscovered by anybody. A computable function also has to be N->N.

            (3) a computer is anything which physically implements algorithms in order to solve computable functions

            That's a deliberately narrow definition of what a computer is, meaning that the author is not actually addressing the topic of the computer analogy in general, but just a subtopic with these assumptions in mind.

            To complete those definitions, I will go ahead an introduce from the same blog post, an intuitive definition of algorithm — “ an algorithm is a finite set of instructions that can be followed mechanically, with no insight required, in order to give some specific output (e.g. an answer to yes/no integer roots) for a specific input (e.g. a specific polynomial like 6x³yz⁴ + 4y²z + z — 9).” And the more technical definition of algorithm in (1) as “

            This directly contradicts the author's point (1), where they give a different, non-equivalent definition of what an algorithm is.
            So, which is it?

            This equivalence of course arises since attempts to achieve the intuitive definition about following instructions mechanically can always be reduced to a Turing machine

            This is obvious nonsense. Not only are those definitions not equivalent, the author is also not actually defining what it means for instructions to be followed 'mechanically'.

            The author of the post recognizes that under this definition, any physical system can be said to be ‘computing’ it’s time evolution function and the meaning of the word loses it’s importance /significance

            Does the author also consider the word 'time' to have a meaning without 'importance'/'significance'?

            In order to avoid that, he subscribes to Wittgenstein and suggests that since when we think about modern day computers, we are thinking about machines like our laptops, desktops, phones which achieve extremely powerful and useful computation, we should hence restrict the word computers to these type of systems (hint: the problem is right here!!)

            I have already addressed this.

            At this point, I am not willing to waste my time on the parts that you have not highlighted. The author is a boy who cried 'wolf!' at this point.

            EDIT: you seem to have added a bunch to your previous comment, without clearly pointing out your edits.
            I will address one thing.

            note the triviality criticism of the informal definition that this author previously addressed, and the 'human who could only carry out specific elementary operation on symbols' is a reference to Turing Machines and the Chinese Room thought experiment, both of which i recommend reading about.

            The author seems to be clueless about what a Turing machine is, and the Chinese Room argument is also silly, and can be summarised as either 'but I can't imagine somebody making a computer that, in some inefficient manner, does introspection, even though introspection is a very common thing in software' or 'but what I think we should call "computers" are things that I think do not have qualia, therefore we can't call things with qualia "computers"'. Literally nothing is preventing something that does introspection in some capacity from being a computer.

            • Frank [he/him, he/him]
              ·
              6 months ago

              I've heard people saying that the Chinese Room is nonsense because it's not actually possible, at least for thought experiment purposes, to create a complete set of rules for verbal communication. There's always a lot of ambiguity that needs to be weighed and addressed. The guy in the room would have to be making decisions about interpretation and intent. He'd have to have theory of mind.

              • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]
                ·
                6 months ago

                The Chinese Room argument for any sort of thing that people would commonly call a 'computer' to not be able to have an understanding is either rooted on them just engaging in endless goalpost movement for what it means to 'understand' something (in which case this is obviously silly), or in the fact that they assume that only things with nervous systems can have qualia, and that understanding belongs to qualia (in which case this is something that can be concluded without the Chinese Room argument in the first place).

                In any case, Chinese Room is not really relevant to the topic of if considering brains to be computers is somehow erroneous.

                • Frank [he/him, he/him]
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  In any case, Chinese Room is not really relevant to the topic of if considering brains to be computers is somehow erroneous.

                  My understanding was that the point of the chinese room was that a deterministic system with a perfect set of rules could produce the illusion of consciousness without ever understanding what it was doing? Is that not analogous to our discussion?

                  • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    At the very least some people are trying to use the Chinese Room thought experiment as an argument against the brain-as-computer analogy/framework.

                    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
                      ·
                      6 months ago

                      Is it fair to say we both think the chinese room is a poor thought experiment that doesn't actually do what it claims to do?

                      • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]
                        ·
                        6 months ago

                        I suppose so. At least when it comes to the Chinese Room being used as an argument against brain-as-computer analogies/frameworks.

            • TraumaDumpling
              ·
              6 months ago

              I have investigated the parts that you have quoted, and that is what I am weighing-in on.. They are self-contained enough for me to weigh-in, unless the author just redefines the words elsewhere, in which case not quoting those parts as well just means that you are deliberately posting misleading quotes.

              and yet you ignore the definitions the author provided

              Firstly, the term 'Turing machine' did not come up in this particular chain of comments up to this point. The author literally never referred to it. Why is it suddenly relevant? Secondly, what exactly do you think I, as a person with a background in mathematics, am missing in this regard that a person who says 'Boolean logic' is not?

              Turing machines are integral to discussions about computing, algorithms and human consciousness. The author uses the phrase 'turing complete' several times in the article (even in parts i have quoted) and makes numerous subtle references to the ideas, as i would expect from someone familiar with academic discourse on the subject. focusing on a semantic/jargon faux pas does not hide your apparent ignorance of the subject.

              This contradicts the previous two definitions the author gave.

              there were no previous definition, this is the first definition given in the article. i am not quote-mining in sequence, i am finding the relevant parts so that you may understand what i am saying better. Furthermore, since you seem to miss this fact many times, the author is using the definitions put forward in another article by someone claiming that the brain is a computer and that it is not a metaphor. By refusing to read the entire article you only demonstrate your lack of understanding. Was your response written by an LLM?

              Whether we know of such an algorithm is actually irrelevant, actually. For a function to be computable, such an algorithm merely has to exist, even if it is undiscovered by anybody. A computable function also has to be N->N.

              'we have' in this case is equivalent to 'exists', you are over-focusing on semantics without addressing the point.

              That's a deliberately narrow definition of what a computer is, meaning that the author is not actually addressing the topic of the computer analogy in general, but just a subtopic with these assumptions in mind.

              i have no idea what you mean by this, according to wikipedia: "A computer is a machine that can be programmed to automatically carry out sequences of arithmetic or logical operations (computation)." which is identical in content to the author's definition.

              This directly contradicts the author's point (1), where they give a different, non-equivalent definition of what an algorithm is. So, which is it?

              The point that the author is making here is that the definitions are functionally equivalent, one is the result of the implications of the other.

              This is obvious nonsense. Not only are those definitions not equivalent, the author is also not actually defining what it means for instructions to be followed 'mechanically'.

              'mechanically' just means 'following a set of pre-determined rules', as in a turing machine or chinese room. you would know this if you were familiar with either. There is absolutely no way you have a background in mathematics without knowing this.

              Does the author also consider the word 'time' to have a meaning without 'importance'/'significance'?

              the author referred to here is not the author of the article i am quoting, but the author of the article it is in response to.

              I have already addressed this.

              you have not. this is the author of the pro-brain-as-computer article restricting his definitions, that the article i am quoting is arguing against using the same definitions. I am not sure you understood anything in the article, you seem like you do not understand that the author of the article i quote was writing against another article, and using his opponent's own definitions (which i have shown to be valid anyway)

              in short you are an illiterate pompous ass, who lies about their credentials and expertise, who is incapable of interpreting any nuance or meaning from text, chasing surface level ghost interpretations and presenting it as a Gotcha. I am done with this conversation.

              • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]
                ·
                6 months ago

                and yet you ignore the definitions the author provided

                Which definitions am I ignoring? I have quite literally addressed the parts where the author gives definitions.
                The author is really bad at actually providing definitions. They give three different ones for what an 'algorithm' is, but can't give a single one to what the expression 'mechanically following instructions' means.

                Turing machines are integral to discussions about computing, algorithms and human consciousness

                They are irrelevant to the parts that you quoted prior to bringing up Turing machines.

                The author uses the phrase 'turing complete' several times in the article

                Not in any part that you quoted up to that point.

                even in parts i have quoted

                I looked for those with ctrl+f. There are no mention of Turing machines and of Turing completeness up to the relevant point.

                and makes numerous subtle references to the ideas

                Expecting the reader of the article to be a mind reader is kind of wild.
                In any case, the author is not making any references to Turing machines and Turing completeness in the parts you quoted up to the relevant point.
                Also, the author seems to not actually use the term 'Turing machine' to prove any sort of point in the parts that you quoted and highlighted.

                focusing on a semantic/jargon faux pas does not hide your apparent ignorance of the subject

                I bring up a bunch of issues with what the author says. Pretending that my only issue is the author fumbling their use of terminology once just indicates that, contrary to your claims, my criticism is not addressed.

                there were no previous definition

                This is a lie. Here's a definition that is given in the parts that you quoted previously:

                (2) an algorithm is a finite set of instructions that can be followed mechanically, with no insight required, in order to give some specific output for a specific input

                I'm going to note that this is not the first time I'm catching you being dishonest here.

                Furthermore, since you seem to miss this fact many times, the author is using the definitions put forward in another article by someone claiming that the brain is a computer

                Okay, I went and found the articles that they are talking about (hyperlinked text is not easily distinguishable by me on that site). Turns out, the author of the article that you are defending is deliberately misunderstanding that other article. Specifically, this part is bad:

                In order to avoid that, he subscribes to Wittgenstein and suggests that since when we think about modern day computers, we are thinking about machines like our laptops, desktops, phones which achieve extremely powerful and useful computation, we should hence restrict the word computers to these type of systems (hint: the problem is right here!!)

                Here's a relevant quote from the original article:

                As such, these machines that are now ubiquitous in our lives are a much more powerful form of computer than a stone or a snowflake, which are limited to computing only the functions of physics that apply to their movement

                Also, I'd argue that the relevant definitions in the original article might be/are bad.

                Onto the rest of your reply.

                and that it is not a metaphor

                So far, I don't see any good arguments against that put forth by the author you are defending.

                By refusing to read the entire article you only demonstrate your lack of understanding

                I came here initially to address a particular argument. Unless the author redefines the relevant words elsewhere, the rest of the article is irrelevant to my criticism of that argument.

                Was your response written by an LLM?

                Cute.

                'we have' in this case is equivalent to 'exists'

                I do not trust the author to not blunder that part, especially considering that they are forgetting that computable functions have to be N->N.

                i have no idea what you mean by this, according to wikipedia: "A computer is a machine that can be programmed to automatically carry out sequences of arithmetic or logical operations (computation)." which is identical in content to the author's definition

                'The English Wikipedia gives this "definition", so it must be the only definition and/or understanding in this relevant context' is not a good argument'.
                I'm going to admit that I did make a blunder regarding my criticism of their point (3), at least internally. We can consider myself wrong on that point. In any case, sure, let's go with the definition that the author uses. Have they provided any sort of argument against it? Because so far, I haven't seen any sort of good basis for their position.

                The point that the author is making here is that the definitions are functionally equivalent, one is the result of the implications of the other

                They are not equivalent. If something is an algorithm by one of those 'definitions' (both of them are not good), then it might not be an algorithm by the other definition.
                The author is just plain wrong there.

                'mechanically' just means 'following a set of pre-determined rules'

                Care to cite where the author says that? Or is this your own conjecture?
                In any case, please, tell me how your brain can operate in contradiction to the laws of physics. I'll wait to see how a brain can work without following 'a set of pre-determined rules'.

                as in a turing machine or chinese room

                Or in any kind of other system, judging by the 'definition'.

                you would know this if you were familiar with either

                Cute.

                you have not. this is the author of the pro-brain-as-computer article restricting his definitions

                You mean this part?

                As I argued above, I think it’s reasonable to restrict their usage to machines, like the brain, that not only solve the functions of physics, but a much larger array of computable functions, potentially even all of them (assuming the space of possible brains is Turing complete)

                Or the part where, again, the same author literally calls stones and snowflakes 'computers' (which I am going to back as a reasonable use of the word)?

                I am not sure you understood anything in the article

                I was addressing particular arguments. Again, unless the author redefines the words elsewhere in the article, the rest of the article has no bearing on my criticism.

                in short you are an illiterate pompous ass incapable of interpreting any nuance or meaning from text

                Cool. Now, please, tell me how my initial claim, 'this is a rather silly argument' is bad, and how the rest of the article is relevant. Enlighten me, in what way is me saying that the particular argument that you quoted, and for which you have failed to provide any sort of context that is significant to my criticism making me 'illiterate'?

                In case you still don't understand, 'read the entire rest of the article' is not a good refutation of the claim 'this particular argument is bad' when the rest of the article does not actually redefine any of the relevant words (in a way that is not self-contradictory).

                In return, I can conclude that you are very defensive of the notion that brains somehow don't operate by the laws of physics, and it's all just magic, and can't actually deal with criticism of the arguments for your position.