If you want to scan the whole brain you don’t want contrasting agents, you just scan the biofield, which gives you accuracy down to photons. There is a lot of noise in the biofield, but you can reduce it by focusing on fewer parts at a time. You get molecular fingerprints, which would be unlabeled, and the big effort is effectively labeling which is which. Nonetheless, if your goal is just WBE you don’t need to know “what each part is”, but just the cause and effect of a sequence of variables. This has already been done...but I digress.
Bioresonance. Current (public) hardware and software can get you to 1mm resolution, advancements could probably get you to cell size. You don’t exactly get molecular resolution, but exchange of energy (electrons, photons in bulk and their spin), which is what I mean by cause and effect. The technology is non invasive and is not damaging (like xrays) so you can collect lots of data and then train a NN on it. The output of the NN still needs labeling though, but labeling the outputs is a much smaller problem. Its “probably” been done before because the technology is old but not really popular in US as it is in Russia (and east Europe), but still not public because not all science is open.
If you want to scan the whole brain you don’t want contrasting agents, you just scan the biofield, which gives you accuracy down to photons. There is a lot of noise in the biofield, but you can reduce it by focusing on fewer parts at a time. You get molecular fingerprints, which would be unlabeled, and the big effort is effectively labeling which is which. Nonetheless, if your goal is just WBE you don’t need to know “what each part is”, but just the cause and effect of a sequence of variables. This has already been done...but I digress.
I do not understand exactly what you mean. Are you proposing something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-dispersive_X-ray_spectroscopy
in molecular detail? Looking up the words “biofield” gives some weird and highly varied stuff. Anyway, iirc from
https://gwern.net/doc/ai/scaling/hardware/2008-sandberg-wholebrainemulationroadmap.pdf
most scientists don’t think a direct molecular simulation is wise or necessary.
Where has it already been done? What sequence of variables do we know the cause and effect of?
Bioresonance. Current (public) hardware and software can get you to 1mm resolution, advancements could probably get you to cell size. You don’t exactly get molecular resolution, but exchange of energy (electrons, photons in bulk and their spin), which is what I mean by cause and effect. The technology is non invasive and is not damaging (like xrays) so you can collect lots of data and then train a NN on it. The output of the NN still needs labeling though, but labeling the outputs is a much smaller problem. Its “probably” been done before because the technology is old but not really popular in US as it is in Russia (and east Europe), but still not public because not all science is open.