That is technically correct but logically in error for it equates the activities/state (neuro-chemical processes) of the brain (which could theoretically be fully described) with those of the (whole) human being of which the brain is only a part. This is the mereological fallacy as first described by Bennett and Hacker in the Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience some 15 years ago now. We now have similar logical fallacy pervading all of computer science which I call the compulogical fallacy (with apologies to B&H). This related but slightly different logical error happens when attributes/activities/states of being which could only be said of an entire (mostly intact) human being are ascribed to computers or machines. I have written about both logical problems some recently. Linked below if you are interested. As a reminder the mereological fallacy is an actual real logical error described by a professional world class philosopher and one of the greatest neuroscientists of our time, the other is a made up funny sounding analogue described by a professional idiot. In any event thanks for replying to my comment and I truly did enjoy your original post as well!