= 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)
How much data for an uploaded mind?
What are your confidence levels that any resolution of brain-scans will be enough to create an emulated human mind? Or, put another way, how much RAM do you think an emulated mind would require to be run?
Partially relatedly, do you know of any more useful trend-lines on how fast brain-scanning technology is improving over the decades than http://www.singularity.com/charts/page159.html and https://imgur.com/cJWmOd1 ?
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.