You've illustrated the very problem nicely.
   The brain is not a computer that can be put next to a computer
   and then have its performance compared, thereby resulting in the
   conclusion that the brain has inferior processing power.

   The computer is an analogy of the brain. While it's HELPFUL to
   use analogies to computers (which we understand better) to
   explain the brains ways... nevertheless, the brain is not a
   computer. It is not like a computer. It can only MINIMALLY be
   compared to a computer for instructional purposes perhaps and
   maybe some curiosities like speed and such.

   But we're not anywhere close to making a computer INTO a brain.
   The brain is a brain. The computer is modelled after the brain.
   The brain is not a computer. We do not fully understand the
   brain. Therefore, we cannot make complete comparisons one to the
   other.

   The computer will always remain in the shadow of its master the
   brain until we understand the brain fully.

   But education never teaches things this way. We're taught things
   the opposite way. Believe me, Daniel, I understand the depths
   quite well. Explaining it however, is difficult because it goes
   against an analogy that was once used as a convenience and has
   since overtaken how we conceptualize the brain itself in all of
   its ways.