> Brains are hardware, minds are software. What you said here is built on several layers of misconceptions.

No.  I posted specific examples of things the article says that are simply not true.  If you want to rebut me, go ahead.  But don't just say "you're wrong".

Real software is commands that are run on real hardware.  Idealized turing machines are useful for computer science theory and research but they don't exist in the universe and they never will.  You, and the article you posted, don't understand this.  Physical hardware that acually exists in the universe is what "decides" how computers (and brains) actually work.  Anyone who actually works with computers understands this.  For example, on an idealized turing machine, traversing linked lists is just as fast as traversing an array.  Inside a real, physical computer, that actually exists, this is not the case.

The article you posted is illiterate in terms of how actual computers and how actual brains work.  To be fair to the article, everyone is illiterate in terms of how actual brains work.  We simply don't know how information is stored, encoded, accessed, cached, etc inside brains.  But that doesn't mean we should make all these vague claims, as the article does.

Finally, the fact that you're talking down to me from a position of ignorance is irritating.  I'm used to it on this forum, where pseudo-intellectual, wikipedia-scholars post wrong shit that they don't understand as if listening to a medium post, podcast, or youtube video makes them a subject matter expert.

If you want to engage in a conversation then respond to the specific things I said and tell me why I'm wrong.  Telling me that "I have multiple layers of misconception" just shows your inability to have a discussion.  If I'm wrong, and you put forward a good argument as to why I'm wrong, I'm happy to learn something.