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

Eugene Leitl (
Wed, 22 Jul 1998 21:37:39 +0400 (MSD)

Jonathan Colvin writes:

> Aha...but now we run into another problem. If consciousness is an emergent
> property of "wet" other words, if the way we "feel" (as opposed

I can't parse 'wet'. Water is a property of the macro/mesoscopic, not the molecular level. Is consciousness an emergent property of molecular level? Of course. Is consciousness an emergent property of an unique molecular configuration? Don't think so. Even if was, it would not invalidate the possibility of uploads at a low enough simulation level.

> to the mere computational aspects of our brain function) is dependent on the
> chemical aspects of our brain, then a computational model will not capture
> the "wetness" of our consciousness. You can model the combustion of
> hydrogen and oxygen on a computer, but it won't make a bang! Now I'm not

It would make an audible bang: if you were part of the simulation. A simulated nuclear explosion does not incinerate the machines at Sandia labs, but it doesn't mean their results are inapplicable to reality. Yours is a classical fallacy: mixing the simulated and the simulation environment.

> entirely convinced that consciousness is "wet" but it seems to be a
> possibility that is quite neglected in AI discussion.
> [...]