>" beyond the observable universe."
Equating understanding something that is actually physically impossible, to understanding something that is physically right in front of us? We can map brains, dissect them, model them.
It's engineering.
If we followed these arguments, then ancient man would have just thrown up their hands "what, everything is composed of little particles, you're crazy, it's beyond our understanding, stop trying".
Maybe the magazine used some hyperbole in the title of an article, that doesn't mean this isn't doable or that this isn't valuable step.
But - you do say, it isn't unsolvable. SO maybe we are agreeing in general, but not about the way articles hype things up.
Seeing beyond the observable radius is indeed impossible but getting through the tremendous amount of data is next to impossible. I believe this is a content for neurosurgeons but not for AI world.
I would rather say that the claim that new brain atlases will unlock the secrets of the human mind is just as pretentious as the claim that the James Webb Telescope will unlock the secrets of what happens beyond the observable universe. I don't believe the mind problem is unsolvable but also I don't believe we have some crucial data missing. I believe we have collected too much noise and new data makes the situation worse in some sense.