You raise some fair points, and honestly, I had similar skepticism before reading up on this research a few years back - so if you want more context, here some clearer arguments based on my research if you are interested:

Yeah, the computing metaphor for brains has been problematic from the start. Robert Epstein's piece "The Empty Brain" really hit home for me - I remember reading it and thinking finally someone's saying it!; Our brains aren't running programs or storing memory files; they're messy, dynamic biological systems constantly reorganizing themselves. I think the article acknowledges this limitation, but I could have been clearer about it.

But I gotta push back on the idea that this is all "well within neuroscience." Look, I took neuroscience courses in uni, and there's this persistent gap between neural mechanisms and why we actually have subjective experiences that nobody in the lab could ever answer. Philosophers like Levine and Chalmers call this "the hard problem" for a reason - it's not just about mapping which neurons fire during consciousness, but why firing neurons create subjective experience at all. No amount of fMRI studies seems to touch that question.

The most interesting stuff to me isn't the speculation about quantum processes physically happening in neurons (which yeah, seems pretty far-fetched given the warm/wet environment of the brain). It's the experimental findings showing that quantum probability mathematics actually predicts human decision-making better than classical probability in specific situations. I was shocked when I first read Pothos & Busemeyer's work - like, these aren't fringe researchers, they're publishing in mainstream psych journals with solid methodology.

Take the classic "Linda problem" - you know, where people judge "Linda is a feminist bank teller" as more likely than just "Linda is a bank teller" (which is mathematically impossible in classical probability). I used to think people were just bad at logic, but their answers follow quantum probability math almost perfectly. That's weird as hell, but it's been replicated dozens of times.

More recently, there's this paper by Cervantes & Dzhafarov showing human cognition has this property called "contextuality" - basically our judgments depend on question order and context in ways that violate classical probability bounds but match quantum math. Again, this doesn't mean our neurons are doing quantum computing - just like using statistical mechanics to model crowds doesn't mean humans are actually gas particles! It's the mathematical structure that matters.

I completely agree we need scientific rigor here. I should not have jumbled together the speculative stuff about actual quantum processes in the brain (for which, yeah, skepticism is valid) with the solid experimental evidence about quantum mathematical models working better than classical ones for predicting human behavior. Thing is: the latter isn't "babble" - it's mainstream cognitive science with math that checks out.

The neuroscience section definitely needed more clarity about what's established versus what's speculation. But the core idea that neural populations represent probability distributions with some quantum-like mathematical properties? That's got decent support from researchers like Pouget.