Oh, this is a treat. Author claims to demolish "Brain is a Computer" as historical ignorance by comparing digital computers and brain. Instead, author shows own ignorance of history of computing by ignoring the relevant branch: analog computers. Most ignore them although they're critical here. So, here's a summary of how analog computers work:

http://oro.open.ac.uk/5795/1/bletchley_paper.pdf

These types of computers implement mathematical functions that process signals from the real-world in their native form in real-time. Each component implements primitive functions that act on electrical input. They're usually arranged in connected components that flow from one thing to another or have feedback loops. They have no memory but can emulate it by generating on the fly. Doesn't that sound awfully familiar? ;)

I've been saying for years that brain is not digital and is a computer. Past year or two learning hardware just solidifies it more. Just look at it's properties to instantly see analog effects:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/is-the-brain-an...

There's models for general-purpose, analog computers with prototypes built, analog models of brain functions, and analog implementations of neural networks. All show that the brain might actually be a general-purpose, analog (or mixed) computer. Moreover, it seems to be a self-modifying, analog machine with some emergent properties starting at childhood in its early phase. The complexity of this thing and re-creating any one brain's function would be mindboggling as author correctly noted.

So, the brain is not a digital computer. It's an analog or mixed-signal computer with massive redundancy and ability to reconfigure itself. The descriptions of inconsistencies with digital match up nicely to model approximations in an analog style. Those issues even contributed to switch to digital for better accuracy/precision. Now, they're going to have to switch back if they want to match the greatest computer ever made. :)

I'll leave you with examples of analog and neural.

http://www.artificialbrains.com/brainscales

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6e84/1782fec1f1f46629ad965b...

Note: The above, my favorite as geometrically closer to brains, is a 60 million synapse system that took 294,912 cores to simulate. That's what a handful of analog chips are doing in real-time. Behold the power! :)

http://research.cs.queensu.ca/home/akl/cisc879/papers/PAPERS...

http://binds.cs.umass.edu/anna_cp.html

Note: Siegelmann writes on non-Turing models for computation focusing on analog and neural. Her lab is all over the theoretical aspects of this stuff.

http://moon.cc.huji.ac.il/oron-shagrir/papers/Brains_as_Anal...

Note: Shows how many of these things are mathematical relationships. Other references exploit that given it's what analog implements.

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329591

Note: A few were interested in simulating actual brain structures with memristors. Above is the latest take on that in Russia.

So, there you all go. It's a computer. It's an analog computer. Also, ends the parallel debates about whether you can have a general-purpose, analog computer or whether it can top digital. A few, analog computers working as a team... invented... digital computers. QED. :)