Re: uploading, it even conceivable (the "wet" objection)

Eugene Leitl (
Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:46:46 +0400 (MSD)

Jonathan Colvin writes:

> I'm not picking on you Harvey, but this seems like an opportune place to
> dipute the whole idea of uploading. It seems to rest on a very narrow model
> of consciousness that regards neurons as discrete computational elements
> that can be simulated. I think this model seriously de-emphasizes the

Well, the world is discrete as well. Even if it wasn't you still could approximate it arbitrarily close, where you couldn't tell artefacts due to finite resolution of the model.

> chemical elements of consciousness...the enormously complicated stew of

Whether they are chemical, or physical, it's ok as long they are magickal.

> neurochemicals the washes thorugh our brains, and which seems to be a huge
> part of emotion/mood/perception....everything that we mean when we talk
> about consciousness. Our neural-nets are good at pattern recognition and
> lots of things that require computation, but I am of the opinion that much
> of consciousness is dependent on very complicated chemistry. You might say
> I am of the "wet" school of consciousness. And how can you upload
> norepinephrine?

Very easily, that's called molecular modelling. In fact you would probably have to reach down as deep as ab initio, to validate the higher-order models in overlapping strides. Some people have already coupled MD with QM for realistic enzyme models.