Aristotle believed the heart was all important and the brain was simply a radiator to keep the heart cool. Descartes, impressed by the hydraulic action of fountains in the royal gardens, developed a hydraulic analogy for the action of the brain. Thomas Henry Huxley thought of the brain as analogous to a steam engine. Now we think brains are computers and so, therefore, computers are brains. However, leaving aside the fact that if an argument is true, the converse argument does not have to be true, the fact is that there is exactly zero evidence and exactly zero theoretical reason to believe that computers can be what brains are. To believe it nonetheless is an article of faith, not an article of science. There are, in fact, some reasons to believe that they are not. The computer/brain analogy is compelling because computers are able to do some things we find extremely difficult and to which we attribute high intelligence to people who can do those things. Playing chess, for example. Mo...