There is an analogy here: the visual6502 simulator just simulates transistors, with an adequate but imprecise model. It loads a description of a chip—presently the 6502 - and then acts out the behaviour of that chip. Other 6502 models out there were written by understanding how the CPU works—we only had to understand how transistors work. Michael Steil’s presentation at 27C3 includes a graph claiming orders of magnitude less work for the same fidelity.
To upload a mind into a computer without having to understand how minds and brains work, one might similarly model at the neuron level and then upload a description of the neuron characteristics and connectivity.
There is an analogy here: the visual6502 simulator just simulates transistors, with an adequate but imprecise model. It loads a description of a chip—presently the 6502 - and then acts out the behaviour of that chip. Other 6502 models out there were written by understanding how the CPU works—we only had to understand how transistors work. Michael Steil’s presentation at 27C3 includes a graph claiming orders of magnitude less work for the same fidelity.
To upload a mind into a computer without having to understand how minds and brains work, one might similarly model at the neuron level and then upload a description of the neuron characteristics and connectivity.
Keep in mind that there may be more to a mind than neurons (different kinds of cells, hormones etc).
Indeed, important, but not a difference in kind: you build a model which is as accurate as it needs to be.