Is this possible?

>>9155719
No, for several reasons among which is the fact that simulation isn't duplication.

>>9155727
I'll expand on that since nobody is interacting.
The scenario depicts a simulated universe where simulated consciousness exist and is apparently the same as normal consciousness.
That presumes a functionalist view of the brain (or something similar to that in the relevant parts) which states that the mind is just a bunch of processes that happen in the brain and that's it. The same processes could be happening in computers and you'd still have a mind, they say.

The problem with that is this.
Imagine having a liter of water. You can throw it, drink it, you can use it to water your plants and so on. Now imagine having a computer that simulates water down to the tiniest subatomic particle. A perfect simulation, if you will. Can you drink that simulation? Can you use it to water your plants? Of course not, because by simulating a liter of water you haven't actually created another one.
And this is the same for every single thing you can think about that we don't know already to be software. In fact, it's the same for perfectly simulated organs: a simulated heart or pancreas can't save someone who doesn't have a real one. But apparently a simulated brain is just the same as a real one when it comes to what it does.

>>9155747
Could a simulated organism not drink a simulated glass of water?

>>9155747
I think we're supposed to assume the "Universe" is metaphorical. The point is that the computer is advanced enough to simulate something well beyond what we're capable of now. A better question might be, is it possible to build a computer out of rocks and sand given unlimited time and stamina?

>>9155795
turing machines

>>9155747
I thought you had a good point and then I read this and was disappointed.

>>9155747
Think of it this way. Through some nearly magical level of technology, we know it would be physically possible to have a brain in a lab somewhere hooked up to a transmitter, and a reciever in a brainless body out in the world that is controlled by that brain. Every single thing the brain does, besides have weight and inertia/mass, can be broken down to 1s and 0s and then translated back to brain function. The brains primary inports and exports are information which is very easily transmitted and for that matter simulated. You cannot do this with lets say water and use it to water plants because you dont water plants with information, you water them with molecules of H2O.

>yes you could argue matter is just information but until we learn to manipulate the fabric of the universe it doesnt really fucking matter now does it?

>>9155719
No. There is a problem in the second panel. You'll get hungry and thirsty.

>>9157520
You are retarded

>>9155719
but his "simulation" is nothing but a big set of rocks that have to be moved individually. at no point does he "program" the rocks or computer, he is programming himself.

>>9155747
What the actual fuck are you talking about? Guys i tried to paint my wall with R15 G30 B56 but it wasnt actually a colour, I guess that means we cant reduce colour down to binary.

>>9155747
Since functionalism posits that the mind is a collection of processes, the observation that a simulated liter of water cannot water plants is correct, but irrelevant. Water is not abstract, the mind is. What you've proven is that you cannot simulate a brain, not that you can't simulate a mind.

>>9157650
Nope, the computer made of rocks follow the same rules as a regular computer, the only difference is that the rocks need to be moved manually.

>>9155719
No, that's just matter without energy