X-Message-Number: 25045
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:15:09 -0800
Subject: The Term 'Soul'
From: <>

Dear Yvan,

You wrote:

"Sorry I don't understant the meaning of this word. For me, it 
comes from religion and is completly ill deffined."

But I have defined it, and I have defined it in a way that does not 
depend on religion. If you like, read through my messages, and 
wherever you see the word 'soul', replace it with the phrase, '
qualia experiencer'---that is, an experiencer of subjectivity (the 
sensation red, for example).

Please take no offense with my usage of a religious term; I use it 
just because I don't want to invent a new word, and because it does 
share some aspects of the normal use of the word 'soul'.

You wrote:

"I think we have to build first a molecular level brain reader so 
we can copy and simulate different brain parts and function before 
we can think about the global working of the system. When this step 
will be done you could say on an informed basis if uploading is 
workable or not, what are its limitations and if 'soul' can be put 
on an 
electronics device. Until that, such messages can't get anywhere."

My argument only depends on a few key facts:

1. There is something within our brain that experiences qualia (the 
'qualia experiencer', or 'soul', if you will).
2. A copy of a thing is not that thing.

From this we can conclude that uploading will not result in 
personal survival; that is, it won't result in survival of the 
qualia experiencer, which is the single most important aspect of 
who we are.

Beyond this, however, I have made convincing arguments that a '
brain program' won't experience anything. So not only will it not 
have your soul, but it won't even have a soul! It is the computer 
on which it is running that experiences things (if the computer is 
even capble of experience; this, I think, depends on its complexity)

Best Regards,

Richard B. R.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25045