This is the core argument:

> But it is to say that there’s a dimension—the narrative dimension of time—that exists beyond the ALU’s mathematical present. And our brains, because of the directional arrow of neuronal transmission, can think in that dimension.

This is so utterly laughable on every level. It reeks of semi-doctism, mixing up levels of abstraction and ignoring All of the relevant literature.

It fails to realize that, if the thing it is claiming were true, it would simply revolutionize the entire field of computer science: it would not only show that you can build a computer more powerful than a Turing machine, but that we already know how : just add directionally to the tape!

Of course, the fact that transistors themselves are directional (in 3 directions, no less! So they're actually 1 more powerful than neurons!) is completely beyond the professor here.

Probably shows what happens when you read Gabriel Garcia-Marquez[0] instead of Alan Turing when trying to understand how computers work.

> Angus Fletcher is Professor of Story Science at Ohio State’s Project Narrative and the author of Wonderworks: The 25 Most Powerful Inventions in the History of Literature. His peer-reviewed proof that computers cannot read literature was published in January 2021 in the literary journal, Narrative.

I can only laugh. 'Narrative science' indeed.

[0] just want to note here, I do not mean in any way to attack the value of literature. It is a wonderfully enriching experience and it helps shape the human mind, it helps us understand the world of humans outside our experience, and it is an invaluable tool to that end. But it is absolutely obviously not a tool for logical thought, and I would bet most great authors would laugh at this idea as thoroughly as I do.