> 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. AlexAlex. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.