Leaderboard

The question itself relies on a false assumption: that an organ can be considered independently of the body. You can regard the entire body as an organic machine and organs as its components, then consider each organ in terms of its functional contribution to the machine as a whole. A carburetor can be described as a kind of heart-lung machine, but that term is meaningless without 1. the internal combustion engine to which it belongs and 2.the flesh machine to which it is being compared. The correlation of body parts to mechanical parts is merely analogy; they are never literally alike. The brain has a whole lot of functions, of which mathematical computation is a very small, and symbolically derived part. It started as a sensory device and developed into a communication device, a regulating device, a recording device, etc. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128311-800-a-brief-history-of-the-brain/ Eventually, it invented arithmetic to tally objects and measure distances. Vice-versa, the computer did arithmetic first, and all the other things it does now are derived from arithmetic. And, while a computer can be adapted to and integrated with other machines, such as vehicles, weapons and production lines, a particular kind of brain can only grow in and with and for a specific organism. So, that would be a NO, plus: such a simplistic analogy can't shed light on either of its subjects. No. The question and terms have to input by the operator. The adding machine doesn't know, and doesn't need to know whether the numbers it's adding are cows, dollars or stars.

Yes, there are not many situations wherein the viewer is motionless and the the screen is moving. That's the affect of the rain. An unmoving screen (the window) is covered by a moving sheet of water, which converts it it into a moving lens, even though it is motionless relative to the viewer. Funny things happen to vision when transparent objects are superimposed.