QED is something you write after proofs not incomprehensible sentences. there is a compelling argument to be made that what neuroscience is missing is theory, not data. there is quite a lot of data.

i am dissappointed, although not surprised that someone who relies on appeals to authority when arguing a point is of the mindset that in an organism so finely optimized that it uses biomechanical feedback in gait generation where larger organisms use central pattern generations involving larger number of neurons that some neurons are more important than others. neurons are expensive.

guess you had better read some more papers.

I will plainly repeat my citation from the previous c.elegans paper ""the inability to reliably identify all neurons within whole-brain recordings has precluded a full picture with circuit-level details."" and the lack of glutamate receptors mapping.

Those are sufficent to asses we are bottlenecked on data. We lack theories especially because we lack data. Yes of course we have a lot of data, which is useless without a complete picture. try debbugging a complex software with only partial, limited logging, the task become easily intractable. But it seems you are more interested in a clash than in sharing knowledge. My argumentation is sound and valid, which make it cogent, authority is unecessary to come to an agreement.