simulacra

What if the simulacra is aware about the dynamics?

B-d, for instance, had a bunch of cool ideas, about simulacra and maps and territory and the Gulf War.

What are your thoughts on a machine that can summon a human simulacra ex-nihilo.

The typical Japanese person hasn't exchanged normal human interaction in favor of simulacra.

We're not going to become gods by making simulacra of perfectly obedient servants.

We want them to do things, and currently all we know how to do is build simulacra of ourselves.

It's either a convincing simulacra of a linux, or it's a linux?

It was weird reading excerpts of Simulation and Simulacra at 18.

They don't summon human simulacra, nor do they do so ex-nihilo.

These tests are easily passed by present and future computers, simulacra -- unless, of course, we begin to assign consciousness to computers.

As such, there exists a fundamental divide between perception of a symbol and the perception of an object (even if it's a simulacra, not a real one).

Perhaps because because those two groups display caution when choosing when to have children, rather than an outright rejection of human interaction in favor of a simulacra?

And who uses the word "mentation?" >What if the simulacra is aware about the dynamics?

But if you aren't joking, may I humbly submit to your consideration that, "did not have sex," and "did give up normal human interaction in favor of simulacra" are two different things.

A quote: "Robert Epstein, a Harvard psychologist who co-edited a book on artificial intelligence, fell for bots imitating live women on dating sites not once, but twice." Of course it had to be a psychologist, a person one expects to be trained and skilled in the devious workings of the human mind, to be taken in by simulacra...

Up front: I've only read Simulacra; I wouldn't call myself well-versed either.