> Being able to describe mathematically that the self-like functions
> exist isn't the same thing as being the self. A picture of an apple is
> not an apple.
Why are you interpreting sentences? A picture of an apple is, to put
it simply, a picture of an apple and nothing more. On the other hand a
complete simulated apple, with all the physics, biochemistry, etc is
exactly an apple just like a simulated self, with all its details 100%
functionally replicated, would really be a self. So your analogy with
the picture of an apple being the same as a simulated, complete
representation of a self is pretty far-fetched; they are not the same:
a picture of an apple only partially tells the story of what it is
like to be an apple; a simulated self with all its functional systems
working exactly in the same way as a real self concoted in a wet brain
completelly tells the story of what it is like to be a self.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at