>>(I assume you don't believe in god) Probably not a good assumption to make, irregardless of my own beliefs or possible lack thereof. 79-89% of Americans do b

>>(I assume you don't believe in god) Probably not a good assumption to make, irregardless of my own beliefs or possible lack thereof. 79-89% of Americans do believe in God as of June [0] and '~1/3rd of scientists' (very nebulous here) believe [1]. I would not say that our brains 'emerged... from simple principles' in any way. Maybe in jellyfish in the pre-cambrian, but not in mammals today. A very large amount of your genome is dedicated to neural development and 'proper' patterning (I think is ~2%, but can't find the citation) and that ballet of in utero development is fascinatingly complex, even in a zebrafish. But, on to your question. No, I agree with you, we do not need to understand the brain to let a simulation happen. However, to properly simulate the brain, we do have to know. Otherwise, how would we know that we have properly simulated it? I know that is a cop-out answer, but it stands. Look at physics. We can set boundaries for the experiment, calculate noise floors, have a 5-sigma threshold, etc. We would have to do that with a brain simulation in order for it to have any real meaning. Yes, we could inadvertently simulate a brain, but then we would not be able to definitively say we have done so without understanding it. This discussion is much more complicated and nuanced and really hinges on the definition of the word 'understand', an argument that has been going on since Plato and before that even. Speaking as a person working deeply in the neuro field, it is going to be a long time, not 'a couple of years'. Yes, surprises happen, and history is littered with paradigm shifters. But is is precisely because those events are so novel and rare that we celebrate them. Most science is very long hard work and consists of experiments that just set ever smaller limits to more and more nuanced phenomena. Take it from me, neuro has a very very long way to go before we have even a passing understanding of the brain. Still, you are correct, our current internet may already be a super-brain, a silicon demi-god. If that is so, then it is behaving just like the one that many people in the US believe in: taciturn and quiet. [0]http://www.gallup.com/poll/193271/americans-believe-god.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/193271/americans-believe-god.aspx [1]http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-...