[quote=“Williham, post:47, topic:811”]You’re forgetting something critical about how the brain works:
A lot of the information isn’t actually stored in the brain, but rather on the brain; or rather, encoded in the physical structure of the brain, which brain cells connect to which, etc.
Storing all that information in a linear, homogenous format would increase its bulk, probably significantly.
I can’t find anything specific relating to information density (except some estimates in the exabyte range), but I’m guessing on the order of several hundred gigabytes per cubic centimeter, with a guessed lower bound of 50~ GB per cc.
There might of course be a lot of points of commonality that can reduce the amount of information that actually needs to be stored, and it would likely compress well, but yeah, nothing portable, for sure.[/quote]
I’m a Cognitive Science major. I’m quite familiar with the complexity of the problem; there’s all kinds of subtleties involved that make the idea of mind-scanning inordinately complex. Even reading that kind of data is a pretty significant challenge, since the nature of the brain as an interconnected system makes interpreting it as a simple linear data stream an incoherent notion; the data itself is in the connections, not simply the current firing state of the neurons. A linear arrangement of the data would, accordingly, require a massive amount of storage space, since for each neuron, you need loads of data involving current state and connectivity weights with all the neurons to which it is linked.
My point, however, was that there is in fact a way to get all that data stored into a lightweight and compact size, since that’s how it is actually done in nature. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’ll be storable in the same formats as our current technology allows for (current storage methods are ludicrously space-inefficient compared to, say, DNA), but future technology will certainly be vastly more space-efficient than current harddrives. If you had a bionic mind-scanning system that compressed a brain-state’s worth of information down to a solid DNA crystal, said crystal would be vastly smaller and more lightweight than the original brain. I’ll take your lower bound and up you by 4 orders of magnitude; if there were 50 terabytes of data per cc, then at 1450 cc per average brain, that’s 7.2 petabytes of brain data. Which fits neatly into a 4 gram crystal, with room to spare; the crystal itself would be vastly smaller than the protective carrying case you’d want to ensure the data remains intact and uncorrupted. Even if you added on another 4 orders of magnitude for the lulz, it’d still be portable; a four kilogram crystal would still be able to fit into a portable carrying case for transport.
Provided you’re able to figure out how to do brain-scanning at all, storage is the least of your worries.