That said, this press speculation is just fluff and it's unclear to me whether it is possible to define such a focused goal.

As an aside, I don't quite get all the cynicism in this thread. President: we will spend more money on science! HN: Meh?

  President: we will spend more money on science! HN: Meh?

  Correct or not, cantastoria's criticism is that giving money to 
  charlatans takes that money away from basic research.

  outline why "mapping the brain" is possible and a good use of 
  resources.

  ...are almost certainly going to get the lion's share of this new money.

Here's the pdf for your link (I can only guess that you find this paper convincing): http://bit.ly/Y2AXtz

  Not sure why you think that.

  I can only guess that you find this paper convincing.

There is something to be said for large, concerted effort toward a singular goal.

As I said that concerted effort has been going on for quite some time now it just hasn't been funded by a narrow project that will benefit very few scientists (and apparently Google, Microsoft and Qualcomm).

It's not cynicism, it's healthy skepticism. "More money on science" in this case looks more like a boondoggle that will benefit a few select scientists and corporations and will probably end up taking money away from a larger group of scientists already looking into these areas.

This new project sounds like it is the neuroscientific analog of LHC or the Human Genome Project. The truth is that we wouldn't be able to replace the LHC with 1000 synchrotrons.

I would be much happier if this project was focusing on creating the LHC equivalent in brain mapping w.r.t. instrumentation and methods. For instance, a cheaper imaging technology that offered 2-3x the resolution of current techniques. That would be a much more focused goal and would have clear benefits for all scientists working in these areas.