= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Open Thread, Jun. 8 - Jun. 14, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (153)
It's not clear that it's possible to nondestructively scan a human brain to the necessary precision.
Is that remark intended to invalidate DataPacRat's question somehow? (It seems to me a reasonable question even if it turns out that emulating specific human brains is infeasible for some entirely different reason.)
I haven't argued that emulating specific human brains is unfeasible just that it likely takes destructive scanning.
All the less reason why that suggestion is a reasonable response to DataPacRat's question, surely?
I'm not worried about 'nondestructive' scanning; I'm curious when LWers believe /any/ form of em can arrive. (I simply haven't been able to find any numbers on destructive scanning resolution, so the nondestructive scanning numbers are the most relevant ones I could include in my comment.) If a brain has to be vitrified, or chemically fixated, or undergo some other irreversible process, and then microtomed, but the result is data that would allow the creation of an em - then that would be included in my question.