I somehow managed to say the exact opposite of what I wanted. What I meant to say is that physically coding every bit of what every neuron does in software mak

I somehow managed to say the exact opposite of what I wanted. What I meant to say is that physically coding every bit of what every neuron does in software makes zero sense. As in, having X lines of code for neuron one, X for neuron two, etc. Which is what the original article seems to apply with the 'lines of C++ code' estimation -- that you would have to write unique code for every neuron. What makes sense to me, is to build a software model of a brain, and let that grow in the same way brains grow naturally, just in a virtualized environment. Hope that makes sense now.