Spend a week somewhere where there is no Internet access, come back and find something like this. Sheesh.
There is a lot here that is not stated, but rather read into, my comments in the autism thread. (We can admit this was directed at me, right?) In case anyone is still reading this let me make a few points.
1. I have not at any time passed myself off as a credentialed biologist. Quite the opposite, I usually open up such rants by stating my background.
2. Credentialed experts in complicated fields have often been glaringly wrong about fundamental things, and have remained wrong for generations. Things universally taken for granted now, such as (a) K-T asteroid, (b) continental drift, (c) planetary orbital shift over geological time have all been considered tinfoil hat nutbag ideas within my own lifetime.
3. I have never said the brain works like a computer. Here is a fundamental misunderstanding of both my and a lot of other peoples' ideas:
What I see is a series of unfortunate analogies and metaphors of biological processes to computer / software-related mechanisms and technologies and a strong conviction that biological processes are deterministic ones that can be described, analyzed and controlled by an adequate number of equations and logical statements (mostly in the form of "if-then-else".)
This is two statements that have nothing to do with one another, connected to create a misconception. First of all, all processes within the material universe are deterministic. That is physics, not biology, and to state anything else is a quite unscientifically religious assertion. (Incidentally, I am not closed myself to these unscientifically religious ideas, but I recognize that they are not science.)
However, the fact that the universe is deterministic does not mean it is predictable by equations, formulae, algorithms, or any other such system simpler than the system in question itself. This is mathematics, not biology -- specifically, chaos theory.
Now if I seem at times to have contempt for people in fields like biology and psychiatry, crap like this is one of the main reasons. You assert a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and mathematics -- fields which are in no way as fuzzy and hard to pin down as biology is -- and use this misunderstanding to accuse people who do know what they are talking about in those fields of not being schooled in your own. Pot, kettle, black.
4. As for the world's most amazing hard drive, I would never make such a simplistic argument; but such measurements are meaningful and need to be examined. Nobody on the genetics side of the argument has ever been able to coherently explain how it is that 7 gigabytes of genome can wire 10^14 interconnections in a fine enough manner to make small modifications possible. This is a very reasonable question which has nothing to do with theories of consciousness of network topologies or whatever else your beef is, because none of that matters; the wiring occurs, by definition it contains information, so where does the information come from? I think it comes from the same place the bug picture does in the Mandelbrot Fractal, and that's not a very unreasonable assumption. But it flies in the face of everything people want to believe about eugenics.
Of course, nobody wanted to believe that the continents and planets move around or that space rocks periodically sterilize large parts of the Earth. The people who didn't want to believe those things were wrong. Some of us would prefer not to repeat their mistake.
I can haz blog!