For example, look at cellular reproduction. Just imagine if your phone could produce a smaller phone, which would develop into a fully functional phone. And imagine if it could do that using energy which was converted from breaking down fruits and vegetables. These are things that every living thing can do, but it's way beyond the scope of what our technology can accomplish.
There are many such miracles of biology. For instance, a gecko's feet act as an adhesive in a way that artificial imitations have not been able to match.
Wheels are also great unless they aren't. If we had evolved in an environment where we had lots of smooth roads to roll around on, maybe some animals would have evolved wheels, but instead we evolved legs which are much better for getting around uneven and unpredictable terrain.
> Thus from the reasoning above it is very possible for the brain to evolve with unnecessary and inefficient "processing modalities".
It's possible, but what evidence do you actually have that this is the case? How do you know the brain hasn't been subject to selection pressures forcing it to have evolved in an extremely efficient fashion?
> Subconscious processing is often times correct and logical.
Is it? I thought you said your brain was just an inefficient accidental mess? Why would you trust it? Or is your brain maybe incredibly powerful and capable, enough to create abstract and complicated emergent phenomena like intuition, which are so far impossible to understand analytically, or indeed to reproduce artificially?
> What my self analysis tells me is this: Given the fact that MANY of our mathematical models for physical processes involve elegant and straightforward primitives it follows that intelligence will also VERY likely be such a model as well and very likely much more simplified then the human brain.
This is a massive leap of faith and I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise!