So your statement was this:
> There must be something "turing complete-ish" about neural nets. As in although the primitive element of a human neuron is complex, you can achieve identical computational power with a much simpler model.
So the assertion is, that you can achieve identical computational power to a neuron with a much simpler model.
That is a leap of faith. There is insufficient evidence to conclude this. If you said "I believe there might be" or "it's possible that" I would not have taken issue with it, but there is a very high burden of evidence to assert this belief. Without that evidence you are operating on faith.
Until we can successfully reproduce something approximating human intelligence, or until we can postulate a credible mechanism by which human intelligence arises, it's a very very big leap to assume we understand anything about what is or isn't required to produce it.
> complexity isn't indicative of efficiency ... But we don't know whether the entire structure is efficient.
We don't know the complexity is efficient, and we don't know whether it's required. What we do know for a fact is that a human brain is capable of producing human intelligence. We don't have evidence that any other system is in fact able to produce human-like intelligence.
> But it is not evidence supporting the thesis that the brain being inefficient is a leap of faith.
I don't have to produce evidence that it's a leap of faith. You made a claim that is not supported by evidence. You have to provide evidence for your claim, or else it is defacto a leap of faith.
> The feeling has been rationalized. I explained the logic, it is now backed up. The criterion here is not absolutist. The criterion is just stating whether or not such a scenario is likely. IS it a leap of faith or is it not? I've sufficiently proved that the brain being inefficient is clearly NOT a leap of faith.
Yeah but you can rationalize just about anything. I could provide a rational argument for why God exists. It's still a leap of faith to believe in God.
You have a rationalization, but it falls far short of being any kind of rigorous proof.
> Easy we have many ML models that already beat humans at certain tasks.. Those models use much less neurons then the entire brain itself and follows a much simpler model. See spam filters. It shows that a simpler model is already possible for certain aspects of intelligence.
All ML models prove is that we have been capable of producing machines that are capable of pattern recognition. It's a massive leap of faith to generalize this result to assert the belief that neurons in general can be modeled at a much lower level of complexity. It may be the case, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that. It's just your belief based on gut instinct, and the fact that you've talked yourself into it.