There is no known experimentally verifyiable model of toddlers' brains, let alone one based on matrix multiplication and normalization. Developing such a model would be a noteworthy achievement.
Therefore these are different.
Not the mention the laborious work of neuroscientists to build out the connectome of the human brain.
The neuroscientists I know in the field would be among the first to tell you that our ability to model the brain is nearly non existent. In fact we don't even have a great model of a single neuron [1]. This statement doesn't invalidate the work folks are doing to try and reach that goal. Biology is hard.
Understanding 50% of the brain, whatever that would even mean, is an utter fantasy.
I am not suggesting that we are anywhere near having a complete analytical model of 50% of the brain.
I am suggesting that we do have tools to continue answering questions about functional aspects of the brain.
Or am I missing something that indicates the non-utility of “function analysis” of biology-based artificial neural networks?