That’s because I don’t understand his point? I’d wager though that it implies that simulations of a mind are themselves minds with subjective experience. In which case we’d have problems.
Then you should be asking him more questions, not replying with dogma which begs the question; for example, is a ‘simulation’ of arithmetic also arithmetic? Then your formula would have been refuted.
Well, OK, What if we change our pitch from “approximate mind simulation” to “approximate identity-focal body simulation”?
A simulation of X is not X.
That’s not a reply to his point.
That’s because I don’t understand his point? I’d wager though that it implies that simulations of a mind are themselves minds with subjective experience. In which case we’d have problems.
Then you should be asking him more questions, not replying with dogma which begs the question; for example, is a ‘simulation’ of arithmetic also arithmetic? Then your formula would have been refuted.
Bump.
What’s a simulation of arithmetic except just arithmetic? In any case PrometheanFaun what does “approximate identity-focal body simulation” mean?
Accidently retracted:
What’s a simulation of arithmetic except just arithmetic? In any case PrometheanFaun what does “approximate identity-focal body simulation” mean?