[neuroguy]

The argument is partially like that, but the more complete version is: 1) We know a lot about brain cognition through psychology, AI etc 2) We know a lot about how people process from all the years of expermentation. 3) The big things we don't know, is exactly what the role of the cell is, or how it processes. For example, is it they synchronous firing of cells that allows us to experience? What is actually going on in all those billions of cells etc. 4) We know a lot about the electrical activity in the brain, some about the molecular and chemical processes etc, but what we don't have is an overarching way of putting all this together, so we know what we are looking at. 5) We don't know what C. Elgans think about or what causes them to do things, so we will have a harder time understanding what exactly makes them tick.

I apologize if there is repetition, unclear lines, or bad reasoning, I am in the middle of running some brain simulations, and had a minute while it ran.

[varjag]

On the other hand, activity patterns of C. Elegans neurons can be comprehensively studied, it's behavior is well studied in how it responds to simple stimuli. Simulating it has all the promising properties of good old scientific method.

It is debatable whether building a $1.6B catatonic brain will advance neuroscience more than a comprehensive, experimentally matched simulation of a simpler system first.

[neuroguy]

I don't think there is much debate about it. I think it is fairly obvious that this project will advance neuroscience quite a bit, even if it would be a smarter choice to start with the C. Elgans. A project like this, putting together what we currently know from experimentation is the necessary next step. Will it bring the massive game changing understanding of the brain that it is hoped, who knows.