You'd get a hell of a lot better resolution with an e-beam blowing up nanometer-sized spots, and feeding the ejecta thru a mass spectrometer. See my talk a couple of years back at Alcor. But I would suggest that this is *waaaay* off-topic for this list... uploading implications to the contrary notwithstanding.
On Friday 30 May 2008 04:42:07 pm, Steve Richfield wrote: > Ben, et al, > > I have posted in the past as part of other postings that live forever > machines should be at once much easier to build, worth far more than an AGI, > and lead directly to an AGI. However, no one has even commented on this. If > I am right, then present efforts should shift in that direction. If I am > wrong, then efforts directed in that direction should be redirected here. > Hence, this IS an important issue to consider here. > > Live forever Machine: An assembly line that takes dying/dead people, scans > out their entire brain structure, and installs that structure into a new > android body that is both repairable and capable of periodic checkpoints. In > short, to last forever, potentially outliving even our own sun. Of course, > additional computing capacity could be installed, thereby making AGIs. > > Note that the main barrier both to AGI and to live forever machines is the > present inability to easily scan out present brain structure. I have > explained on other forums how to do this, but it would take some investment > in new machinery. The missing device is a scanning UV fluorescence > microscope, which would focus isolated spots of UV a few microns into brain > tissue and observe the fluorescence and decay characteristics, and then move > on to other spots until the top few microns were completely scanned out. > Then, a cryostatic microtome would slice off ~4 microns and the process > would continue anew, with a computer matching up the newly exposed surface > with the deeper part of the structure previously scanned out. > > Brain tissue is (nearly) transparent and is richly fluorescent, providing a > map of chemical structure from its fluorescence. There are experts (like > Kathryn Graubard) in this area, but all they have to use are non-scanning > fluorescence microscopes that only have visible-light resolution, no ability > to read out decay characteristics, and no attached computers to make the > best of the available information. > > From the physical mapping, the computer would then generate a logical > mapping, which would then be put into a simulation program to continue the > operation of the scanned-out brain. > > Presuming that the entire AGI concept is indeed correct, this logical > mapping could then be added onto, to make an AGI of limitless capability, > but with the continuing consciousness of a specific individual human. This > provides a smooth path to an AGI but without having to solve the early > development puzzles, or having to understand the myriad "little details" > that doubtless stand in the way of people-programmed efforts. Then, one we > actually have a functioning AGI whose operations is 100.00% observable, we > can work on completely understanding it to make better. > > It seems like SUCH a waste of time and effort here to be working on theories > and ideas, most of which would be made instantly obsolete by the appearance > of a scanning UV fluorescence microscope. Wouldn't it be MUCH better to > focus on making at least one of these machines to answer substantially all > of the outstanding questions regarding how we work? > > Certainly, any potential investor would have to see the need for such a > device to assure future AGI success (not to mention finding the cures to > countless diseases), so if there is to be any substantial investment into > AGI efforts, it would seem reasonable to expect to see the first money going > into a scanning UV fluorescence microscope. > > *Hence, if YOU are looking for money for AGI development, then you should > also be looking for money to develop a scanning UV fluorescence microscope, > as it will insure that you can figure out EVERYTHING needed to make an AGI. > Otherwise, all you need is just one puzzle that you can't see how to solve, > and your entire effort ends up in the bit bucket. Your prospective investors > are probably focuesd on just such problems as you read this. This would not > only be cheap insurance, but should help your investor(s) see that you > WILLsucceed, despite any unforeseen problems. > * > ** > Not only is AGI stymied by the lack of this device, but so is neuroscience, > cancer research, and a number of other biological fields. Of course, it > hasn't occurred to biologists that this device is practical to make because > they can't see their way past the computer problems - that many of the > people here on this forum could handle, even with a hangover. > > Steve Richfield > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
