Oh on the contrary. Opposite. A computer s like our consciousness but our consciousness not like a computer. The mistake people make is flipping the metaphor the wrong way, but that happens with a lot of things.
In short computers are loosely based upon an idea of how a consciousness might function, whether directly or indirectly but the consciousness is far more complex and the superior by far.
Analogizing the consciousness to a computer is handy so long as one realizes the limitations which are many.
Myself, I prefer a metaphor of synonyms. That is, consciousness is metaphors upon metaphors. Or, that is to say that metaphors are based upon how our consciousness works.
A feed-forward circuit is a very basic form of consciousness, much as a group of mirrors positioned just so might be, were one the totality of the system of light and mirrors.
It’s systemic. A verb. Action. A process. A “happening”. Metaphor:
What’s a car?
Engine? Wheels? Driver? Gas? Road? No.
Everything put together? No.
What’s a car do?
Goes from A -> B utilizing a system of components that function together.
Any one of the parts and necessary actions removed that are definitive of a car’s action, it ceases to exist as a car and is just a jumble of stuff.
It’s unfortunate our languages did not develop mature enough to express systems properly, so we end up with weird things like considering “love” as a noun, so one might ask “Where can I find love?” as if one is looking for a snack in the refrigerator.
Love is a process, communication, process, a happening. Even when it’s in noun form, it can’t be frozen into a hard ‘thing’ that just sits there. Unfortunately, many concepts end up being ‘crystallized’ like that inappropriately, leading to a lot of people incorrectly understanding the concepts because our languages tended to develop with a nominal focus – that is, noun-i-fying happenings for ease of description but then losing out on the ‘spark’ of movement that must go with them for them to be.