You appear to have misinterpreted me as well. I did not at all mean to imply that you intentionally had done any such thing. Only that in the one particular sentence I highlighted you suggested that a brain was capable of doing something that it is not at capable of doing, learning. Only (mostly) whole human beings and some non human animals with (mostly) fully functioning nervous systems including brains are capable of this. A brain by itself is capable of almost nothing. I think you just followed the convention of the day when people write about neuroscience, and I do not suggest you are a bad person or a bad writer for it. Almost everyone these days says the brain does this or that thing (it sees, it hears, it dreams, it remembers, etc.) even though it is not capable of doing those things. This is the mereological fallacy, ascribing something to a part of a thing (brain) that can only logically be applied to the whole thing (human person). I only ask that next time you write about neuroscience and the brain you choose your words more carefully because the way we write about these things has big implications for the way we think about them. The consequences for wrong thinking in this particular subject area are significant and not for the good.
In any case thanks for reading and commenting!