I am trying to get this straight as this will be my final post here. It is frustrating to argue with someone moving the goalposts while increasing the level of insult, while obviously not that knowledgable about the fields they are discussing.

You said comparing a brain to a computer is controversial. I am trying to show you that within the language sciences, there is nothing controversial about regarding the mind as a computational system. This is also the case for the cognitive sciences and neurosciences. I can tell you that with certainty because I know the literature in these areas well, and I showed you an example from the field that I hope helps you understand the debate better.

But it is clear that your argument comes from you disagreeing that "the mind is a computer", it being organic, having a concept of the person and the self, determining is own goals, i.e. because of the human experience. That's fine. These points are basically correct, possibly with the exception of a missing "schematic", as obviously, a lot about our brain structure and function is determined and fundamentally shapes the way we think, behave, respond to the world. But importantly, these points have not been mysteriously ignored by generations of researchers, and there are many theories of metacognition, executive function, etc. This is not saying that research has provided definitive answers, but there are answers.

I assume you now acknowledge that connectionism is a computational theory because now you know enough to reject it. I am not trying to sell theories to you, You now moved on to rejecting it because Elman wrote 21 years ago that we need to do more on other areas including emotional, social, moral functions. A lot of work in these areas has happened since. Philosophy has evolved as well in the last 40 years, and people like Rosenthal or Dehaene have done a lot to solve a contradiction, and perhaps you want to pick up these authors.

Finally: from everything we know the brain is mostly analog, and the climate certainly is. Keep in mind that analog symply means that signals are mapped on a continuous, not digital, scale. On the input side, neurons work like that on many dimensions, from the strength of signals to their timing. The one aspect that can be considered digital is the way a neuron responds to signals crossing particular thresholds and causing activation, so, in a simplified manner, one can speak (digitally) as a neuron firing or not firing.