> Have the Blue Brain project claimed anywhere that they aim for full human behaviour in 10 years?!

They predicted that an artificial human brain can be built within 10 years.

So, yes.

> It would be wonderful if they can simulate a rodent's brain with nerve inputs and get it learn to run in a maze and do similar things.

Agreed, that would be amazing.

But I can already do that with relatively simple electronics, that does not even require software. What would be even more amazing if this simulated creature showed initiative of its own.

> I thought the technical term was "biological damage"?

Not neccesarily. A computer that is running a stored program in ram is indistinguishable on an atomic level from one that has just been rebooted but is hanging at the boot prompt waiting for a key press because there is no network to boot from.

The one is a useful tool, the other one a door stop.

Damage did not enter in to it, the computer is fine, the bootstrap sequence is what is holding it up.

> You really seems to argue that anyone with some biological brain damage from oxygen deprivation loses their "soul"?!

You are trying to make me sound ridiculous because I tried to draw an analogy between how religious people (and I'm not religious) see the situation and how an electrician or a scientist would see it. State is information, the information is what can be lost, even though you still have all the physical components.

> Either you're drunk,

thank you for that.

> trolling me

Apparently not, I don't have time to waste in spite of spending a considerable amount of time on answering you.

I may be mistaken, and I'm certainly open to learning.

> or you don't know anything at all about biology

I've worked my way through a university grade course in Genetics, but do not have any formal education in the field, in fact I have very little formal education at all. That hasn't stopped me from learning though.

> and damage to the brain and loss of partial function and therapy.

There seem to be a multitude of failure modes, not all of them are well understood.

>>What if the state is more like 'RAM', and it needs the software running on it now to keep it going.

> I think that argument was killed by electric shock therapy.

Could you explain that ?

>> I don't think they are dishonest or idiots at all, merely underestimating the scope of the problem.

> Uhm, (i) WHAT have the Blue Brain project really claimed?

To be able to simulate a full brain within 10 years.

> (ii) I'm not an expert

Neither am I, but I do know that if you make a bold claim like that you have a problem if you fail to deliver. That would be a pity because I think that if there ever is going to be an answer to these questions that answer is going to come from a project like this. By overselling it they are damaging their long term prospects.

The same happened to 'regular AI'.

> (I'll read up on brain science in a few years, when it has stabilized...

I read as much as I can, several hours a day on lots of different subjects, including this one, I highly doubt that they have the trajectory planned out to the point where can state that they will have a functioning artificial brain in 10 years.

> the field seems to move faster than light, right now) and the little I know is mostly on cellular level, but you really don't know anything at all about biology?

That is your assumption to make, I don't think you are right.

But I will not resort to calling you either a drunk or trolling me as you just did, I appreciate the time you took to write your answer.

Not everybody that you find yourself disagreeing with is drunk or a troll.