pears

This topic seems right up EdEarl's street. He provides some links in the following post that may be of interest. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79009-brain-vs-computer/?p=771152 In particular the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence refers to whole brain emulation. I've not looked at them in detail but you may find something useful/informative. If you are interested in replicating consciousness however I agree with iNow. We just don't understand enough about minds or how the brain produces consciousness yet. Also trying to test whether a simulated brain is conscious will be really difficult if not impossible. If a simulation behaves as if it is experiencing things, does that mean it actually is experiencing things?

Good-oh

As I've already stated numerous times comments were directed at my challenge. So I reiterated/clarified my challenge IN RESPONSE to what had been said to me. Is this so hard to understand? I disagree that getting rid of the God concept will cease all violence AS CLAIMED IN THE OP. If you disagree with me fine. We will have to agree to disagree.

I thought the OP was talking about the absence / presence of the concept of God rather than actual existence/non-existence of God, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

It's in the OP. I challenged the OP. You challenged me on what I've said in exchanges about the OP! How is it a straw man when I'd challenged the OP which makes that exact claim. John replied to my challenge by saying atheists get along fine which appears to challenge my challenge. So then I asked him how that would work. It's not a straw man. It's in the OP!!! Btw your upvote was from me by accident when I tried to hit reply. Just for the record people Exactly!

*sigh* yes I know. Kindly reread my posts. You said I said Why did you originally ask me this: when I had clearly said nothing about what the effects of God are?!

And where did I say you said that? You queried a point I made by asking me something which was completely irrelevant to anything I've said in this thread. I then clarified the point I made (which you had quoted). It might be worth reading through the whole thread to get a sense of the conversation before making odd requests.

Except that without change there would be no way to tell that time was 'proceeding'. Can time then actually be said to be 'proceeding' if there are no observers and no way to observe/measure the phenomenon?

Huh? Why? I'm not saying what the effects of gods are. I'm asking why getting rid of the concept of God would mean people would all suddenly live in harmony.

And if you want to get started now you could get an A Level (or equivalent) text book, beg, borrow, or buy and start working through it in your own time.

What evidence? You haven't cited any?

Welcome Ukyuu. A fantasy writer then?

OK so something really is pushing against something then. It's not just magic

How do you know that?

Which is irrelevant to my point.

Just because you never have doesn't mean other people won't.

How do you know? Do you hope to eliminate deceit and selfishness by eliminating the concept of God?

Thank you. That helps!

So here's a fairly basic question. I understand that rocket thrusters work by expelling hot gas into empty space, which results in motion in the opposite direction. This is because of the equal and opposite reaction to that force right? In my mind it's completely unintuitive that a thruster would work without pushing against something. So is this equal and opposite reaction explanation all there is to it? Is there a way of breaking this down into something that could be understood more intuitively or is it just a 'brute fact' that I need to accept?

Really? Without Gods there'd be no disputes over land, property, political ideologies?

And people who have no God? What's going to help them get along?

If you take away everything then you have to include space in that surely? Everything minus everything equals Nothing.

Then what do you mean by "true from a scientific standpoint"? Scientific theories are always open to falsification on the basis of new evidence.

Not a very scientific approach