I agree with that idea. For many years, I have felt the graphic depiction of the brain such as this:
Is, in some sense, wrong, or even kind of obscene. A brain per se
is not a proper object of cognition, as it actually doesn't do
anything. What is removed from the skull, as in the above image, is no longer really an organ, and certainly not 'something that thinks'. Whatever meaning it is able to comprehend, is only by virtue of its situatedness within the context of a living being, who is in turn situated in the environment. So it is really not an 'object which thinks'. In fact I would argue there is no object which thinks.
Accordingly I also have the view that patterns seen in such images in this:
Do not actually represent 'thoughts'. Why? Because to infer this misunderstands the nature of 'representation'. When a rational being looks at a sign or a symbol, he or she knows 'this sign means such-and-such' by the process of inference and the ability to grasp abstract ideas. However a neural pattern doesn't represent
something, because it is not a sign or a symbol. What is it, exactly? Well, in fact, as an image, it is nothing whatever. It is exactly what you see: a collection of coloured spots on a film. A specialist may be able to infer
something about what the subject of such a scan is thinking, but this inference is again much more a matter of interpreting signs and symbols, than an insight into the nature of what thinking actually is