5 ms·

Ethics aside, if we could simulate a whole brain, then we could simulate billions of brains and try all sorts of things, something we wouldn't be able to do wit

Ethics aside, if we could simulate a whole brain, then we could simulate billions of brains and try all sorts of things, something we wouldn't be able to do with physical humans. At least not without being labelled as mass murderers and turning into a bird.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
This made me laugh. If you put ethics aside, couldn't you just do all those things on physical humans? I have a hard time believing we'd find it ethical (at least in the long term) to experiment on a simulated brain. If it were accurate enough, might it be considered a person?
- StavrosK 5y ago
  Why wouldn't an accurately simulated brain be considered a person?
  - notdonspaulding 5y ago
    > Why wouldn't an accurately simulated brain be considered a person? Ah, and here we come to the crux of the matter! What makes a person a person? Is it merely electrochemical activity in a certain type of tissue? It's important to recognize that this question comes to the border that marks the end of the territory of biology and the beginning of the territory of philosophy. It's possible to charge right through this border (as Stephen Hawking did in his book The Grand Design) but there is a peril in doing so. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/physics-philosophy-quantum-relativity-einstein https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/physic... > The attempt to fit consciousness into the material world, > usually by identifying it with activity in the brain, has failed dismally, > if only because there is no way of accounting for the fact that certain nerve impulses > are supposed to be conscious (of themselves or of the world) > while the overwhelming majority (physically essentially the same) are not.
    - taneq 5y ago
      Is he charging through the border, or gently rebuking the concept of a border?
taneq 5y ago
OK this is still bugging me a day later... I'm missing the reference with the bird bit. What's that from?

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago

This made me laugh. If you put ethics aside, couldn't you just do all those things on physical humans? I have a hard time believing we'd find it ethical (at least in the long term) to experiment on a simulated brain. If it were accurate enough, might it be considered a person?

StavrosK 5y ago
Why wouldn't an accurately simulated brain be considered a person?
- notdonspaulding 5y ago
  > Why wouldn't an accurately simulated brain be considered a person? Ah, and here we come to the crux of the matter! What makes a person a person? Is it merely electrochemical activity in a certain type of tissue? It's important to recognize that this question comes to the border that marks the end of the territory of biology and the beginning of the territory of philosophy. It's possible to charge right through this border (as Stephen Hawking did in his book The Grand Design) but there is a peril in doing so. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/physics-philosophy-quantum-relativity-einstein https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/physic... > The attempt to fit consciousness into the material world, > usually by identifying it with activity in the brain, has failed dismally, > if only because there is no way of accounting for the fact that certain nerve impulses > are supposed to be conscious (of themselves or of the world) > while the overwhelming majority (physically essentially the same) are not.
  - taneq 5y ago
    Is he charging through the border, or gently rebuking the concept of a border?

taneq 5y ago

OK this is still bugging me a day later... I'm missing the reference with the bird bit. What's that from?