On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Miriam English wrote:
> Why would you need to destroy the original?
Because otherwise we can't get the resolution.
> There are scanning techniques that can resolve down to individual neurons
> in insects non-destructively now. They require pretty intense magnetic
> fields and only work on small things so far, but I imagine scaling it up is
> not an insoluble problem. We would also need to scan at a fair bit below
Imagination is unfortunately wrong here. MRI microscopy doesn't scale to
the resolution necessary, which may well be submolecular.
> the level of detail of neurons so that you make out receptor sites and
> synaptic vesicles. That may be enough to automate recording of a human
Alas, I don't see MRI microscopy resolve any submicron structures, even on
microscopic (mm^2) samples.
> brain so that a model of its operation could be accurately be recreated.
> This way you could have a copy of yourself made so as insurance against a
> calamity. You would periodically "backup" your brain to record all the more
> recent memories and thought patterns, and choose at which model contains
> the happiest and healthiest version of yourself to be used as your final
> self upon biological death.
> The model would operate inside a computer (likely not the kind of computer
> we have at the moment), and would play inside virtual worlds. There would
> be windows out onto the "real" world too.
> I like very much the idea that I could keep a backup version of myself
> without endangering my biological self in the process. I hope it is not too
> far away. I figure maybe 20 years from now...
I recommend consulting the archives (if they be working), this is a
-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a>
ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:42 MDT