> aren't all that different from how neurons work Nobody knows how neurons actually work: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/ibm-brain-simu

> aren't all that different from how neurons work Nobody knows how neurons actually work: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/ibm-brain-simulation-compass.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/ibm-b.... We are missing vital pieces of information to understand that. Show me your accurate C. Elegans simulation and I will start to believe you have something. Perhaps in a hundred years, this is the argument: for several hundred years, inventors tried to learn to build an AI by creating artificial contraptions, ignoring how biology worked, inspired by an historically fallacious anecdote about how inventors only tried to learn to fly by building contraptions with flapping wings. It was only when they figured out that evolution, massively parallel mutation and selection, is actually necessary that they managed to build an AI.