[dsr_]

The problem with trying to correct this is that it's not wrong, because it doesn't really state a hypothesis.

Are you trying to say that brains are quantum computing devices? Maybe, but we don't have any particular evidence for that, so it's on a par with saying "The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a tiny noodly appendage that reaches through hyperspace into each neuron, and that's how we think."

We can observe brains in a lot of different ways - active electromagnetics, chemical sampling, microscopy, MRI... and we can say that injuring certain areas of the brain will impede certain functions. We know that excesses or droughts of some chemicals are associated with emotions, depression, and some diseases.

But we don't have a good model for how brains think, and among the good models we don't have, quantum computing is one of them.

[posterboy]

I was being sarcastic, but then wasn't sure whether the comparison was actually wrong.