[fghrthtb]

Well, not entirely. Imagine a perfect replica of Rembrandt's brain connected to an artificial body, a painting produced by this machine would be a Rembrandt.

Now imagine reducing the correlation between the artificial brain and Rembrandt's brain until you reach the level of correlation to that of the machine described in the article. There will be a precise point where the paintings produced by the device will stop being Rembrandt's.

That is not to say that this machine is producing Rembrandt's. I am only saying that your reasoning is too simplistic.

[gglitch]

Not sure why you're getting downvotes. Sure, the argument comes off as sort of sophomoric in the face of the indisputable fact that there was an actual Rembrandt and this painting was produced neither by him nor by a low-fidelity replica of his brain; but I think it's interesting to think about. If we wanted to get real sophomoric, we'd apply the Ship of Theseus/Heraclitus/Lucretius line of thought to whether even a Rembrandt is a Rembrandt: is what I made yesterday made equally by the me of today? Cross-pollinating the brain-replication discussion with the multiverse discussion is pretty wild to think about: what is a copy of a dynamic thing?

[fghrthtb]

Thanks, for your reply. I think I'm being down voted because the idea is too general for most people to understand, also they get caught up in the emotional back patting that goes on whenever people get a chance to show their allegiance to the "group think". I'm getting pretty sick of being correct and yet ignored. As a younger man I thought I was just stupid and wrong, that was bad. Now I am older I realise that most other people are wrong and that I am usually right, I am not sure which is worse.

Have you misunderstood the meaning of sophomoric? You are describing your own interesting philosophical thoughts as sophomoric. Is this because people have told you that they are? Have you considered the possibility that the complexity and breadth of your thoughts in this area make them feel inadequate?