It also never gets into whether the brain is an exception to our laws of physics; if it is not, then it's trivially computable because the laws of physics are.

It also never gets into whether the brain is an exception to our laws of physics; if it is not, then it's trivially computable because the laws of physics are. If you're going to argue the brain is not a computer, you need to give plausible reasons for thinking the laws of physics are incomplete (which is what Penrose does, for example). Any quantum randomness in the brain can be simulated because we know how to generate quantum randomness, then just feed that into a deterministic physics emulator. To deny that requires new laws of physics.