X-Message-Number: 32895
From: Daniel Crevier <>
References: <>
Subject: experimental validation of uploading
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 12:28:37 -0400

I'd like to come back to my posting No. 32877 of september 28. It didn't get 
any reaction, so let me try to add some zest to it. I think this posting 
shows that the theory that uploading preserves consciousness is falsifiable 
: it can be proven or disproven experimentally whether the uploaded person 
is still conscious, and not a zombie.

The experiment I suggest  is the following. Do only a partial uploading of a 
subject : only replace the primary visual cortex by a digital circuit. It 
has been shown that loss of this area leaves stroke victims consciously 
unaware of visual information, even if some visual processing seems to be 
still occuring in other parts of the brain. So if there is a short list of 
brain areas intimately related to consciousness, then the primary visual 
cortex is very much in it. Note also that loss of this brain area leaves all 
other mental abilities intact: the subjects can still think, talk, and 
report on their internal states. If this brain area is digitized, then one 
of two things could happen.

First, the subjects could report that they still have normal vision. 
According to uploaders, this is the expected outcome, since we assume that 
the digitized part of the brain will interface with the rest in exactly the 
same way  as the pre-existing biological one.

Alternatively, the subject could report that he or she has become blind. 
This should be the outcome expected by anti uploaders, since according to 
them the digital circuitry lacks whatever magic is required to induce 
consciousness.

Right now, this can't be done in practice, but we'll get there. The evidence 
so far, though, is pretty much in favor of uploaders: for example, retinas 
are made of neurons, and electronic replicas have been made; subjects were 
quite aware of their inputs.

So, after all, belief in uploading may not be a matter of personal choice or 
values. It may be objectively verifiable.

 Any comments?

Daniel Crevier 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32895