Part of the article actually uses this as in exact example of how brains are different from computers. Granted, it's from 1983.
The man in question essentially missed the forest for the trees - unable to perform any visual abstraction or familiarity, while still having strong abilities to identify the individual features of an object.
At the end of the day, brains are, indeed quite different from computers. The closest things that I'm aware of are neural nets, which can be subject to biases and confusion in a similar way to human brains - rather than a CPU.
neural nets, which can be subject to biases and confusion in a similar way to human brains - rather than a CPU.
That's a slight abuse of comparisons.
Saying an ANN is not like a CPU would be like saying your stomach is not like a refrigerator.
An ANN is a universal approximator / universal modeler. A (turing-complete) CPU is a universal simulator. There's no native "CPU algorithm" to exploit or sample against for any knowledge retrieval.
