Mind is the brain?

[The Grand Nudger]

A computer does not have to be Turing complete. A calculator is a computer. It computes. It literally has logic gates and performs binary logic. This is what's taught at universities.

Go to a better university?  They don't have to be turing complete, but they still need to be computers...to be called computers.  The only kind of calculator that's a computer is a programmable calculator.  It is in fact a computer used -as- a calculator.   These are the types of calculators most people are familiar with, ofc.  

---

There is also the field of natural computation.

Basically if you can get numbers out of it then you can compute with it. The first tools for computing were abacuses. Teams of women calculating Maths used to be called computers. But here is the crucial point:

-You- can, sure.  The "computer" using an abacus, was the person holding the abacus.  You seem to have realized this, but completely missed the implication.  The "computer" was supplying the program and the input for the calculator, (and the memory, ofc)...then doing work with the output.  

Computing requires Maths. Maths is a human construct used to reason about the world.

Well, you also need logic..unless you just want a calculator.  Math and logic are related, but not identical.  I think you might also have a hard time with anyone who sees math as a discovery, rather than an invention.  What happens when you have "1" chestnut in your hand, and pick up another?  You have "2".  This didn't begin to be the case when we invented math.  The situation with the chestnuts was then, what it is now, before numbers or theorems were a twinkle in anyone's eye.  Not that this matters much, as theoretical math approaches uselessness in the case of computing..which is based upon applied and practical math, when math is applied.  The math must be able to accurately represent whatever it is you're using it for.  Sometimes it can't....and that's when you step out to the other functions computers can provide.

---

This whole argument about definitions is not relevant to the flawed idea that the mind is the brain. The mind is an emergent phenomenon of the brain. If you start talking about computation happening in natural phenomena then you need to be careful not to make the mistake that theists make in thinking that maths and logic is somehow an objective part of reality. It's not. It's a tool constructed by humans.

Why is it a flawed idea?  Is anyone making that mistake?  Emergence is wonderful, but I don;t think it speaks to context  here.  If the "emerging" is, literally, brain in action...then the "emergent mind" is brain.  How do you make the distinction, personally, between what is brain, and what is an emergent property thereof?  I can see it easily with regards to the observations which lead us to conclude that something has a mind.  That the behaviors are emergent.  That these are emergent properties of the system, in context.  As far as mind itself being an emergent property, how do we go about determining that?  How is it that it emerges, in your opinion, for starters?