Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[emjay]

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.

-which is why I explained that it's not theory dependent.   That it can be done is evident; how we do it, if we do it, if it happens, is not.  It's not that it "doesn't fit", that if such a situation were present it would somehow contradict or argue against your theory or mine (or any theory).   A non-functional objection.  

That's what I said isn't it?

It is, I was giving more concrete examples to show that there was no need for maybes or what ifs.  

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.

Agreed, which is why the concrete examples of automatic processes in biology and the concrete example of how ccurrently understood computational architectures handle timing discrepancy are so useful.  We seek to unravel and understand the unknown by reference to the known.

Not disagreeing with you or arguing a theory vs another, discussing the mechanics of how we approach a logical analysis of claims pursuant to either(any).

Agreed on all points

Though just to say, in my opinion scratching your arse is not comparable to subconscious processes like the heart beating... it involves a choice to do so and/or a trigger to do so. So that doesn't cut it for me personally, but as you said that doesn't matter... they're just different theories.

Actually, that said, those processes can come into conscious awareness and be acted upon (more so breathing than the heart rate) so there could be a similarity/connection after all. So scrub what I said.