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’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.
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.