Well, I agree it is an elegant phrasing of the point. But the point itself is wholly bogus, which kind of dulls the shine.
It is not an intellectual dead-end to say that structural model do not account for observed functional events. In fact it is an opening of intellectual doors. I'll tell you what is an intellectual dead end, though: trying to cram creative power, aesthetic awareness, transpersonal consciousness and other intensely "spiritual" (for want of a better word)data sets into an arbitrary mechanistic--or at least materialistic--model, without noticing the glaring qualitative mismatches I have spoken of up thread.
I am coming to the conclusion, however, that the rule of "if it doesn't fit the model, it is not data, and if it IS data, it damn well WILL fit the model" is not going to relax on this thread, and similar ones we have had before.