View Single Post
  #828  
Old 01-27-2018, 03:19 PM
RaftPeople is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 7-Eleven
Posts: 6,790
I'm a latecomer, I read the first post and then SamuelA's first post in the thread and then this page.

Seems like his primary point is that:
if we had the physical details of a brain, down to the appropriate level, that we could use it to build a simulator that functions substantially the same as the original.

That position seems like a reasonable position if we make the assumption that we don't need to simulate down to the level of quantum interactions (I assume that becomes problematic) and if we assume our behavior is based on physics/energy, not some unknown component like a "soul."


Is the primary disagreement with how many decades or centuries it will take for humans to be able to capture the state of a brain?

Or is the disagreement that the level of detail required is so great that capturing the state will also alter the state so the result would be invalid?