Even getting reliable and useful output from the brain is still much much harder than you think it is. > Now imagine an integrated set of circuits directly con

Even getting reliable and useful output from the brain is still much much harder than you think it is. > Now imagine an integrated set of circuits directly connected to my brain. It wouldn't have to be many. Let's say 10. 10 circuits connect to what, exactly? How? Where? Attaching electrodes to existing cells is invasive and uncomfortable (to say the least), and temporary because scar tissue forms and severs the connection in time. But suppose you developed some way of reliably, durably, and non-invasively attaching external artificial neurons into your brain (to be sure, a huge jump). Where would you put these neurons, exactly? What would they synapse to? Just one or two particular neurons? How would you locate them during "install time"? How would the user access them during "run time"? Most brain-machine interfaces use motor neurons because they're easy to access. Maybe that'd be a good route, but again, doing this reliably and non-invasively is really hard, especially if there isn't a clear feedback loop. I don't know why, but a lot of people seem to think that neuroscience is a lot closer to being "solved" than it actually is. Truth is, we barely have any idea how the brain works, let alone how we can meaningfully augment and interact with it.