[cr0sh]

While everything you say is true (ie - I agree), does it really matter?

No - we don't know how the C.Elegans 302 neuron connectome works - but if you slap it into a robot or simulation, it tends to act in a similar manner as the actual biological creature (at least, that's what I understand).

We've seen similar results with biological neural networks (cell cultures and such) hooked up to machines as well.

If the connectome of a fruit fly were somehow mapped, and then simulated on a machine - it is very likely that it would act like a fruit fly.

Taken to the utmost extreme, the same could possibly be said for the connectome of a human being, could it not?

Does it matter in that case, then, whether we understand how it works - versus the fact that it is working?

[notahacker]

I don't think it's remotely reasonable to extrapolate making a simulation of 302 neurons wiggle a simulation of a simple muscular structure without full understanding of the wiggle process to making a simulation of 90 billion neurons produce outputs which resemble expressions of human cognition without an incredible depth of knowledge of a connectome structure that shows more variation in an individual over the course of a day than C.Elegans does within the entire species, and how that relates to long term memory storage and a mind-bogglingly complex array of sensory inputs and outputs.

Why do you?

It seems akin to suggesting that if I can teach my dog to respond to "sit" despite it lacking human emotion or innate grammar, it seems only reasonable to believe my dog can also learn to respond appropriately to the complete works of Shakespeare. Come to think of it, I'd place more faith in our ability to train our pets to write software than our ability to create a human brain emulation so accurate it's like adding another developer to the team.

[throwaway2048]

connectomes fail to reproduce behaviours.