brain emulation

whole brain emulationsimulated brainsfar from it
cyber
  • whole brain emulation looks feasible at current state of technology
  • cyberlinks offer amazing opportunity for modeling physical and artificial brains
characteristic mycelium network human brain biggest computer bostrom
total nodes ~10^21 nodes ~8 x 10^10 neurons ~10^12 nodes ~2*10^6 nodes
total edges ~10^25 edges ~10^14 synapses ~10^15 edges ~2*10^6 edges
total length of edges 450 quadrillion km 1,500 kilometers 100,000 kilometers not applicable
power of node amoeba amoeba amoeba human brain * amoeba
energy efficiency high high low medium
characteristic mycelium network human brain data center powerful desktop bostrom cybergraph
total nodes ~10^21 nodes ~8 x 10^10 neurons ~10^12 nodes ~10^10 nodes ~2*10^6 nodes
total edges ~10^25 edges ~10^14 synapses ~10^15 edges ~10^12 edges ~2*10^6 edges
total length of edges ~450 quadrillion km ~500,000 km 100,000 km not applicable not applicable
power of node amoeba amoeba amoeba amoeba human brain * amoeba
energy efficiency high high low low high

  • table mentions current bostrom cybergraph created by ~50k neurons

  • existing technical capacity of bostrom is something in the middle between data center and powerful desktop

  • this is picture must give conceptual understanding, not scientific rigor

  • so let us know if you understand how to improve precision of evaluation

  • if some form of moores law can be applied to the growth of computing

  • some form of brain emulation seems right behind the corner

  • TODO how could cyber be bigger when mycelium?

  • Let's refine the numerical estimations for the Bostrom cybergraph and compare it with the mycelium network using a more detailed approach. Here are the key metrics recalculated:

  • Mycelium Network:

  • Total Nodes: (10^{21})

  • Node Power: (1) (amoeba equivalent)

  • Total Computational Power (TCP): (10^{21})

  • Bostrom Cybergraph:

  • Total Nodes: (2 \times 10^6)

  • Node Power: (10^{14}) (human brain * amoeba)

  • Total Computational Power (TCP): (2 \times 10^6 \times 10^{14} = 2 \times 10^{20})

  • Revised Understanding:

  • Mycelium Network TCP: (10^{21})
    Despite each node being weak (only as powerful as an amoeba), the sheer number of nodes makes its TCP extraordinarily high.

  • Bostrom Cybergraph TCP: (2 \times 10^{20})
    Even with a far smaller number of nodes, the exponentially greater power per node means that its TCP approaches that of the mycelium network.

  • Additional Comparisons:

    1. Node Count Comparison:

    • Mycelium: (10^{21}) nodes

    • Bostrom Cybergraph: (2 \times 10^6) nodes

      The mycelium network has (10^{15}) times more nodes than the Bostrom cybergraph.

      1. Node Power Comparison:

    • Mycelium: (1) (amoeba)

    • Bostrom Cybergraph: (10^{14}) (human brain * amoeba)

      The power per node in the Bostrom cybergraph is (10^{14}) times greater than that of the mycelium network.

      1. Total Edge Length Comparison:

    • Mycelium: ~450 quadrillion kilometers (this is a vast distributed network with immense physical spread)

    • Bostrom Cybergraph: Not applicable in a physical sense but conceptually connected nodes would have very short connection paths due to high computational power.

  • Conclusion:

  • The mycelium network has immense scale but lower computational power per node. Its strength lies in redundancy, distribution, and sheer number of nodes.

  • The Bostrom cybergraph is extremely powerful per node, allowing complex simulations with far fewer resources. It is designed for centralized, high-efficiency computations, making it powerful in a very different way.

    In essence, while the Bostrom cybergraph’s TCP is of a similar order of magnitude to that of the mycelium network, the way these networks achieve their respective computational strengths is entirely different, reflecting their distinct design principles and use cases.

Linked References

Local Graph