Comment by lelanthran

> We know the brain is made up of atoms and we know how to model atoms.

Incorrect. There's still a lot we don't know about atoms. We can (sort of) model them, but not with the degree of accuracy you appear to think we have.

I mean, it's only recently that we discovered surprising changes in the properties of quarks, gluons and nucleons in relation to each other!

So, yeah, the following foundation for your argument:

> So we do know for a fact that the brain can be modeled mathematically

Is untrue. We can't do that, we have never done that.

> The blue brain project has already modeled the hippocampus and cortex of the rat brain uses advanced imaging and simulations in super computers.

They've got something, but they don't know how close or how far away they are from accuracy to the real thing.

We've almost always had a model of the human brain; first our model was simple (it has four or five parts), then we learned more and our model expanded to include actual cells (neurons, dendrites, etc), then we learned even more and our model was refined even further to include activation energies, rerouting, etc.

What makes you think we are anywhere close to the base layer when there is no more refinement to be made? Because while there is still things in brains that our outside of our knowledge (which, by definition, we don't know yet), we don't know enough about brains to make a replica of one as a mathematical model, or in silicon.