>>There is a crucial difference between believing that a computer can simulate a brain and believing that a windmill can do so. >That depends entirely on what y

>>There is a crucial difference between believing that a computer can simulate a brain and believing that a windmill can do so. >That depends entirely on what you think a brain is No. It depends on what you think a computer is. You see, the reason why many scientist today believe that a brain is computer or can be simulated by a computer is that computers are universal machines. In contrast to a mill, which can only mill grains, a computer can simulate earthquakes, the weather, cars, other computers, and, you guessed it, mills. >People are ignoring a good lot of scientific method when they propose that were a computer to every simulate a brain the veracity of that simulation could ever be verified. You seem to ignore the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test. >What would essentially be needed in the simulation, that is the production of consciousness, could never empirically tested. How do you know that I am conscious? Or any other person you converse with for that matter.