Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!peernews.demon.co.uk!pancake.remcomp.fr!photon!adjih
From: adjih@photon.remcomp.fr (Cedric Adjih)
Subject: Re: When is a simulation of an X an X?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Organization: Home
Message-ID: <1995Feb14.234538.276@photon.remcomp.fr>
References: <3h4sln$bns@arcadia.informatik.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 23:45:38 GMT
Lines: 28

Florian Gruener (gruenera@informatik.uni-muenchen.de) wrote:

: Since I got the possibility to join the news group I have been reading some
: arguments about the point where a simulaton of an x iS an X.

: First answer is that a simulation is REALITY as long as no one can tell
: the difference, that is, no one can actually prove that the X is a 
:simulated X.
: But then I read an argument that looked good to me for the first view.
: I understand the comment that a copied Rembrandt is NOT a real Rembrandt -
: that is undoubtedly TRUE.

  No it isn't :-) Remember that in art there is a good deal of fetichism. A 
picture = an image + a thing on which worked painter Rembrandt.
  If you "copy" the Rembrandt the traditionnal way, you get only the "image".
  
If you were given a glass in which for instance Goethe (sorry for the 
clich) would have drunk, you could find it of some value. But if you would 
be told that in fact Goethe has not touched it but it comes from the same 
serie of 10000000 identical glasses of which he used one other, then you 
would probably find your glass of much less value. The same applies to 
Rembrandts.

  If you really want a good copy of a Rembrandt, you can imagine that you
"clone" the painter Rembrandt and make/watch him producing your picture ;
maybe you could be more statisfied with this solution.
  To some extent, fetichism is illogical.

