Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[emjay]

I'm not sure that applies to how I view the processing in the brain. To me it's basically just the constant flux  and flow of neural dynamics. So a choice represents one context or another gaining the upper hand in competition with others etc. So any large gap in timing doesn't really fit.

Then you're explicitly proposing a scenario in which the brain is somehow incapable of doing what a calculator does as a matter of course.  I'm not saying that it might not be true, that it might not actually "fit in"...only exploring what follows from the statement.  

Yes I guess I am and I guess this is where we diverge. You have your theory and I'll have mine. To me 'computation' comes from transformation and abstraction (ie what you might call classes in logic, but the neural equivalent... lines into shapes into objects etc) rather than whatever you mean by it.

So in that case one explanation could be that there is still 'settling' going on, just more subtly and out of conscious awareness... so though it feels like you're doing/thinking nothing when you're being idle, there may still be plenty going on below the surface.

Well, that isn't even a "what if" or "may be", you're not consciously aware of the process behind your heart beating or lungs breathing either. Hell, we don't seem to be consciously aware of -any- process involved in how we think about things, automatic this and thats aside ( even assuming that anything isn't). You can't tell me where in your mind any thought is happening even if an mri might be able to.

That's what I said isn't it? That's a reasonable conclusion but me being me I like to be exact... so if possible I'd always prefer a detailed explanation than a vague 'probably'. So therefore the question still remains open to me but it's not pressing.