> Thinking in terms on software design and architecture you can start using a similar vocabulary. But I think that's exactly the example of where the metaphor

> Thinking in terms on software design and architecture you can start using a similar vocabulary. But I think that's exactly the example of where the metaphor starts to give us bad information. The biggest difference between the brain and a computer is that the brain is fundamentally parallel. Not more threads in a GPU parallel, but rather the processing the brain does is the manifestation of the parallel actions of a mass of information processing units interacting with one another. To give an example of where using the computer metaphor gives rise to very misleading assumptions because of this: in many cases with a computer, more data equals more cost. If you need to iterate through a million data points to get a result vs. a thousand, it's going to take a lot more time to reach the answer. But with the brain it's precisely the opposite. More data points means a denser network of interconnections which can give a better answer sooner.