Is uploading feasible?

Andrew Mitz arm at helix.nih.gov
Tue Dec 7 14:46:00 EST 1993

In article <9312071027.AA01432 at net.bio.net> ST102078 at BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU (Arioch) writes:
>>"in the 'original' parts? If it is in the whole system, then would you be
>>"satisfied with the slow neuron-by-neuron replacement scheme envisaged by,
>>"among others, the original poster?
>>my identity would not include new peripherals any more than it does my
>>hand, which cannot think.
>>                the keyboard of:        Andrew Hay, adh at turbo.east.sun.com
>    Ah, but your hand *is* part of your identity.  Since it provides sensory
>input to the brain (not to mention it being a durn good effector), it is in a
>sense an extension of it. If bit by bit you removed effector and sensory portio
>ns of yourself, you would eventually be just an unconnected brain. With no inpu
>t and no output your are just a dead box.
>  Given the studies done on sensory deprivation, I imagine whatever conciousnes
>s was left in the CNS would quickly "go insane" and you would lose any sense of
>you (ie your identity)
>  By the same logic, if you add bits; say something in your eyes that allows yo
>u to see beyond the normal visual spectrum, your input changes. Allow the devic
>e itself "can not think" it has become part of your identity.

Sorry, but this argument falters.  If you had a hand, but nothing to touch,
then the hand would add little or nothing to your sensory experience.  
Following the logic further, each object you touch provides one more
(essential) sensation.  The conclusion is that everything you touch
is part of your identity.  The logic of your argument forces you to go farther
than you seem to want.

Andrew Mitz, Biomedical Eng., Nationl Institutes  | Opinions are mine alone 
of Health Animal Center, Poolesville, MD          | arm at helix.nih.gov       

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net