"Grounded cognition rejects traditional views that cognition is computation on amodal symbols in a modular system, independent of the brain’s modal systems for perception, action, and introspection. Instead, grounded cognition proposes that modal simulations, bodily states, and situated action underlie cognition."
EDIT: I forgot a very interesting one involving a computational experiment:
Selmer Bringsjord, "A New Gödelian Argument for Hypercomputing Minds Based on the Busy Beaver Problem"
Now I'm looking for evidence which supports your theory - that brains = minds = computers. Affirming that a theory exists without providing evidence that it is true is not enough.
There are competing theories. One of them, which is backed by some empirical evidence, is "Continuity of Mind" by Michael Spivey
http://www.amazon.com/Continuity-Mind-Oxford-Psychology/dp/0...
Short summary by Spivey:
http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/CSJarchive/Proceedings/2003/pdfs/3...
Another approach, also relying heavily on experiments, is the "Grounded Cognition" thesis, of which Lawrence Barsalou gives a good summary:
http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/barsalou/papers/Ba...
From the abstract:
"Grounded cognition rejects traditional views that cognition is computation on amodal symbols in a modular system, independent of the brain’s modal systems for perception, action, and introspection. Instead, grounded cognition proposes that modal simulations, bodily states, and situated action underlie cognition."
EDIT: I forgot a very interesting one involving a computational experiment:
Selmer Bringsjord, "A New Gödelian Argument for Hypercomputing Minds Based on the Busy Beaver Problem"
http://www.osl.iu.edu/~kyross/pub/new-godelian.pdf
Now I'm looking for evidence which supports your theory - that brains = minds = computers. Affirming that a theory exists without providing evidence that it is true is not enough.