I think you need to include the previous sentence:

Kurzweil conveniently makes no mention of how the human brain would be modeled in a Homo-complete machine. One presumes that he views neurons as mini-electronic devices (like elements of an electrical circuit) with firing characteristics that, once adequately modeled mathematically, would account for all of the activities of a human brain under some kind of computer-science neural-network scheme.

I haven't read Kurzweil, but if he doesn't make mention of such a scheme is it right to criticize him for it as if he had? I can easily imagine a 'homo-complete' machine that doesn't model the human brain except on the level of consciouness at which it is compared. To biologically create the equivalent of a computer screen, nature would have to come up with a very different setup than the one that sits in front of me. My web cam and my eye perform the same function without sharing the same components or types of complexity. I don't think my webcam was created by modeling rods and cones and their biochemical processes. The argument presented here seems like a strawman to me.