Brains more complicated than previously thought

I generally understand statements like that to be shorthand for (1) The computations performed by a natural brain can be implemented in a software artificial brain, and (2) those computations are the only aspect of a natural brain I care about.

If you question (1), I doubt I can satisfy your doubts, but I am curious as to what sorts of computations a brain can perform but software can't.

If you question (2), I'm certain I can't satisfy your doubts, but I'm curious as to what other aspects of a natural brain you care about and why.

If you understand something else by the phrase in the first place, it might help to unpack your reading more explicitly.

I have never understood what underlies this article of faith

I discourage the use of 'article of faith' as a rhetorical device.

Do you honestly believe that an artificial brain can be built purely in software in the near future?

Kaj never mentioned "near future" or any timeline for uploads for that matter. The only thing he did was pointing out a possible flaw in your argument, yet you took it as a personal insult to your belief.

The Whole Brain Emulation Roadmap implies that it may very well be possible. I don't have the expertise to question their judgement in this matter.

As this review shows, WBE on the neuronal/synaptic level requires relatively modest increases in microscopy resolution, a less trivial development of automation for scanning and image processing, a research push at the problem of inferring functional properties of neurons and synapses, and relatively business-as-usual development of computational neuroscience models and computer hardware. This assumes that this is the appropriate level of description of the brain, and that we find ways of accurately simulating the subsystems that occur on this level. Conversely, pursuing this research agenda will also help detect whether there are low-level effects that have significant influence on higher level systems, requiring an increase in simulation and scanning resolution.

There do not appear to exist any obstacles to attempting to emulate an invertebrate organism today. We are still largely ignorant of the networks that make up the brains of even modestly complex organisms. Obtaining detailed anatomical information of a small brain appears entirely feasible and useful to neuroscience, and would be a critical first step towards WBE. Such a project would serve as both a proof of concept and a test bed for further development. If WBE is pursued successfully, at present it looks like the need for raw computing power for real-time simulation and funding for building large-scale automated scanning/processing facilities are the factors most likely to hold back large-scale simulations.

Really nifty. I summarized both here, although the full articles are short enough, and are worth reading.

I am a bit surprised if this is surprising - is it not obvious that electric fields will affect neuron activity. Whether a neuron fires depends on the voltage across its membrane (at a point in a particular region at the base of the axon and, it seems, down the axon). The electric field around the neuron will affect this voltage difference as in good old-fashioned electrical theory. This is important for synchrony in firing (as in the brain waves) and that is important for marking synapses between neurons that have fired simultaneously for chemical changes. etc. etc. etc. Fields are not to be thought of as a little side effect. What is more interesting is what the fields do to glial cells and their communication which is (I believe) carried out with calcium ions but very affected by electrical fields. The synapses live in an environment created by the surrounding glia. The brain cannot be reduced to a bunch of on-off switches.