Saying "very far away" may be an understatement.
First of all, we do not have the faintest idea of how the brain works at all, nor a good way of even looking at it.
This profound non-understanding coupled with very modest means to even look at what's going on has lead to ill-advised beliefs such as we're only using 10% of our brain.
There's EEG, which is basically a couple of wiggly lines in which scientists try to find patterns, but if you're being honest it's close to reading tea leaves. The problem is that what the EEG shows is a summation of interfering microscopic impulses along a multitude of vectors, under the (probably wrong) assumption/simplification that cranial structures and/or skin conductivity go exactly the way you think and do not influence the outcome. Put differently, you're looking at some pretty patterns, but there's no way you can truthfully make too much of it in a sense of "read mind" or even "copy a personality". But even assuming you could read someone's mind that way, this would likely still not let you extract knowledge that isn't being accessed or copy a personality from those electric impulses.
There's the UCSD experiment where probands (although the researchers were in my opinion cheating because all they really measured was the brain's response to a flicker pattern that probands looked at!) managed to "dial" numbers on a cell phone by means of thought patterns. Well, awesome. The brain reacts to external stimuli, that's big news. Now tell me how to upload your mind to your cellphone.
And there's MRI, which gives even prettier patterns than EEG, in color and in 3D. You can show that certain areas of the brain light up when certain things are done or when certain external stimuli appear. While this is impressive, it's approximately the same thing Mengele did 70 years earlier, only less invasive, and at slightly higher resolution.
From "we see these areas light up" to "copy a personality" it's approximately like having discovered that things that you drop fall to the ground and a manned mission to Mars.
We do not know exactly how the brain stores (or processes) information. Yes, we do have some educated guesses, but we don't really know exactly. When looking at not only what a simple honey bee is capable of remembering, but also how capable it is at path planning and rather non-trivial mechanical tasks, I'm stunned how the hell nature manages to fit all that into a brain the size of a needle pin. How large is your brain again? Good luck decoding that.
We do not even know how much information a human brain can store, but we do know that the amount is huge, and we know that information is stored in a non-obvious way which one could consider a kind of "interlinked lossy compression with forward and backward error correction". Something like that. Memories are not just data, they are data that has been filtered, weighted and validated, and connected to other, sometimes unrelated data in a non-obvious way, with massive holes that are filled from other data, or sometimes interpolated with what seems plausible to the brain, and with no way of telling a difference (guess why witnesses are such a pain in the ass). So far, we cannot even remotely guess how this works at all. We can only tell it must be something the like from observing what people remember (and sometimes what they think they remember). Some personality-defining memories/abilities (let's say playing an instrument) are in addition supported by dedicated hardware (if you want to call the cerebellum that). Which, of course, you would need to somehow copy too.
We don't know whether personality has anything to do with stored information either, or where personality comes from, for that matter. Is it defined by your experience? Genetic? Given by God? Hardwired by your dendrites? Stored chemically? We have no idea. We can only tell from observation, with reasonable certitude, that it's probably not one of the previously mentioned things alone.
Experiments that might give an answer would take decades and would be highly unethical to the point of being forbidding (e.g. raise clones in different environments, observe them for 20-25 years, then cut their brains to slices).
If we knew all of the above, we still wouldn't know how to map all of this to a digital format that a computer can store, let alone build a computer large enough to do the job, or how to "transfer back" the mind, once copied and stored. While it might, in principle, be feasible one day to copy the "data" from the human via some "scan thingie", the brain simply isn't built to receive a new mind like this. There's no "input" plug of sorts.