He's trying to argue that those million lines of code have to run on hardware which is poorly understood at best He may be trying to argue that, but that isn

He's trying to argue that those million lines of code have to run on hardware which is poorly understood at best He may be trying to argue that, but that isn't the central thesis of what he is arguing. His central thesis is that [The brain's] design is not encoded in the genome and that's just patently false. There's only one single blueprint for the brain and that's the genome. That the ways in which the blueprint is being read, interpreted and carried out are not in the genome does not detract from the fact that the genome is the blueprint. His arguments support the thesis that a blueprint is not enough. The objections to Kurzweil that I list are a summary/rephrasing of the arguments Myers provides. But he starts out by saying "No, that isn't the blueprint" and none of the arguments support that thesis.