On Dec 25, 6:58 pm, alexalex <alexmka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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.

A picture is a complete visual simulation. It is nothing less than
what you would get with a digital simulation except that the digital
simulation provides you with interactive realism on whatever levels
you know how to simulate.

> 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.

Not at all. A 'simulated apple' is just several pictures superimposed.
You are mistaking a visual representation of physics and biochemistry
for actual physics and biochemistry. An apple isn't an apple unless an
*actual* worm can live in it. Anything that could be represented by a
digital computer on a monitor is not that. If you are talking about
some kind of nanotech impersonation of an apple, then it's not a
simulation but an artificially produced fruit which may or may not be
an apple depending on the recipe and materials used.

> 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:

Simulation is in the eye of the beholder. It isn't possible for one
thing to literally be another thing so that there is no such thing as
a complete representation. You're not accepting that a picture is in
fact a visual simulation. A movie would be a more complete simulation.
What you're talking about is more or less an interactive holographic
movie and nothing more.

> 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.

A simulated self only partially tells the story of what it is like to
be a self - the irrelevant part. The chemistry and biology of a living
brain could be modeled in a computer program which would satisfy any
neurologist or biologist or chemist but it need not have any internal
experience at all. The program is a model of the outside of the
brain's behavior with nobody inside to actually experience the world
through that brain. A model of the self which is reverse engineered
from brain function is just a model of brain function and has no more
capacity to feel than a CAD drawing of a column can support a marble

I understand that it's irritating to think of things this way, but you
have to if you want to understand awareness. We have to break the
habit of conflating abstractions with concrete realities and concrete
realities which we are familiar with and consider important right now
in the 21st century with the unknowable totality of all possible
realities. It's one thing to simulate a game of billiards in Java, but
quite another to simulate "I".


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to