Neurochemistry and thus neurologic is necessarily carbon-based

[MarkBruns]

You simply cannot understand neuroscience or neurochemistry coming at it like ultra-religious fundamentalist silicon-logic zealot ...when you are stuck in the silicon dead end, you have to recognize that you have taken the path and you can't get to neurochemistry from a silicon mindset.

The chemical FACT is that silicon oxidizes to a solid.

This well-known immutable stubborn FACT is the driving reason why ONLY carbon ever has been shown to support life and organic growth ...

HINT: The organic growth in all brain cells is carbon-based.

... or just like [sorta] the organic ecosystem development that find in the complex microbial ecosystems which develop around growing fungal mycorrhizal hyphae ... and then go on to serve as a source of energy and nutrients and then form the basis of ever more complex ecosystems of animals, plants, fungi which are part of the ecological secession.

The brain is not dissimilar from mycorrhizal hyphae ... sure, explorational fungal might not be the perfect metaphor, but it's a heck of a lot closer than thinking of the brain as silicon-logic collection of little on-off switches. The chemistry of the substrate drives how the logic develops.

Therefore carbon-based neuropathways connote a distinct neuroefficiency in creative processing of thought; it's similar to how the patterns of primes in Ulam's Spiral used in numeric algorithms ... the path through the maize is depends upon the underlying substrate and the orientation of the chemical bonds ... look at the primes and the paths ... this is only ONE way ... carbon-based living molecules have a lot more tricks up their sleeve.

Carbon-based neurochemistry is several orders of magnitude bigger than the simplicity of any anything that came from dope silicon or transistors ... but you won't ever see it if you're looking at Life and expecting it to only have stupid pet tricks of silicon.