Emulation vs Simulation

[Markito]

I often felt when reading begging of infinity that, the term emulation
should have been used instead of simulation. when we talk about
uploading ones personality into a computer, do we really want it
simply to seem like,(simulation) or would you prefer it to be like
you (emulation).

I make this simple explanation, it's the differences between a bitmap
image and a vector image. Or an explanation vs and observation.

I personally think their is a distinction what do you think?

[David Deutsch]

On 22 Sep 2011, at 5:02pm, Markito wrote:

> I often felt when reading begging of infinity that, the term emulation
> should have been used instead of simulation. when we talk about
> uploading ones personality into a computer, do we really want it
> simply to seem like,(simulation) or would you prefer it to be like
> you (emulation).

A mirror image of a person, or a recording of a person, isn't a person. Whether one can make any other kinds of simulation of a person -- specifically, things that are a person but work in a way that doesn't reproduce the inner functionality of the person being simulated -- I doubt.

>
> I make this simple explanation, it's the differences between a bitmap
> image and a vector image. Or an explanation vs and observation.
>
> I personally think their is a distinction what do you think?

The universality of computation ensures that emulations of all physical systems are possible. So I guess nothing much will hang on whether non-emulation simulations are.

-- David Deutsch

[Mark Hidden]

On Sep 24, 5:37 am, David Deutsch <david.deut...@qubit.org> wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2011, at 5:02pm, Markito wrote:
>
> > I often felt when reading begging of infinity that, the term emulation
> > should have been used instead  of simulation. when we talk about
> > uploading ones personality into a computer, do we really want it
> > simply to seem like,(simulation) or  would  you prefer it to be like
> > you (emulation).
>
> A mirror image of a person, or a recording of a person, isn't a person. Whether one can make any other kinds of simulation of a person -- specifically, things that are a person but work in a way that doesn't reproduce the inner functionality of the person being simulated -- I doubt.

'are a person' =no. 'seems like a person'= yes. I can right a
computer program that behaviors the same but work differently you
can't call them the same unless you want to gloss over the inner
workings. seems [ like ] and is [ like ] are vary different. From a
modern day computer standpoint it is a vary important distinction. I
honestly believe this distinction becomes more important when we mix
simulation and emulation together to get hybrid systems. I can
almost concede you the point from a height level perspective, but I
don't like the use of simulation, when you clearly should be using
emulation, and by extension endorsing the distinction between the two.
call me a nitpicker, but call me wrong at the cost of over
simplification.

[Mark Hidden]

OK I still think their is a difference, now that you have talked to Sam Harris.  Think about it from a moral standpoint. That is why a distinction maters.

[Alan Forrester]

On 18 Dec 2015, at 17:59, Mark Hidden <mshi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 9:02:51 AM UTC-7, Mark Hidden wrote:
>
>> I often felt when reading begging of infinity that, the term emulation
>> should have been used instead of simulation. when we talk about
>> uploading ones personality into a computer, do we really want it
>> simply to seem like,(simulation) or would you prefer it to be like
>> you (emulation).
>>
>> I make this simple explanation, it's the differences between a bitmap
>> image and a vector image. Or an explanation vs and observation.
>>
>> I personally think their is a distinction what do you think?
>

> OK I still think their is a difference, now that you have talked to Sam Harris. Think about it from a moral standpoint. That is why a distinction maters.

A simulation can simulate every aspect of a particular process including how information flows to bring about a particular state.

Your thoughts are particular patterns of information processing in your brain, so a simulation can simulate everything about your thoughts.

So I don’t see why we should invent a different term.

Alan

PS - You may want to join the Fallible Ideas group, which has more discussion:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/info.