Neurobiology has proved this, just read Buzsaki or Northoff. The brain doesn't need models, it needs differences.

I have a PhD in cognitive science and my supervisor was a neuroscientist.

That's irrelevant. Cog-sci is largely folk psychology, and the problems in automating inference in AI demonstrate the model would eventually collapse. Question is how do we toss this model aside for an irreducible form of post-symbolic relationship between brains and machines?

I appreciate your gumption but I really think that you don't understand things as well as you think you do. Maybe read someone other than Paul Churchland.

Both Churchland's are out of date. Note the references above, this is a neurobiological, dynamic approach they're not party to. If you don't know what those are or optic flow, neural reuse are, then study them. Trad Neuroscience and cog-sci is no longer applicable.

God you are so smug about something you know essentially nothing about.

I'm lead dev in a start-up that applies coordination dynamics to spatial-syntax. I probably know quite a bit more than you do about what I'm doing.

I don't care what narrow thing you're working on, the brain is simply not as well understood as you think it is.

We have a substantial grasp of the allocortex to make significant probes into working memory that relate to semantic memory, episodic thought, emotion and certain senses. The very idea we understand that Sharp Wave Ripples encode this and that various scales of waves integrate to create memories and action is the beginning of bypassing existing computational frameworks.