Looking up stuff I came across pic, a paper about modelling the cerebellum on the Japanese K/京 supercomputer, and an article reporting on it:
https://theconversation.com/japanese-supercomputer-takes-big-byte-out-of-the-brain-16693They list specs in the introduction (11 petaflops and 1 petabyte of DRAM for example, so 10^15) but don't mention storage specifically. Clearly nowhere close to being enough, since it was
>about 1% of the raw processing power of a human brain.>the simulation still took 40 minutes to provide the computational power of one second of neuronal network activity of the brain in real, biological, time.I also found a bunch of people talking about how simulating atom interactions would require quantum computing to be feasible, so yeah, it's probably going to be measured in qubits if and when it happens.
>>109988The thing with redundancies and inefficiencies is that the body is nonetheless adapted to those kind of things being present, and there's way too much stuff we still don't understand about it. Another quote from the K article above:
>Add to the mix the increasing evidence that glia cells (which don’t carry signals like neurons but make up around ten to 50 times more of the brain mass than neurons) aren’t just there to provide physical support for the neurons but are an integral part of the brain’s function, and the computational problem gets even bigger.