The brain would only be used to control thought, which in itself is
non-physical. So why have a physical item controlling the non physical?
Again, there would be no need for a physical brain at all.

The idea of a 'physical' brain would presumably help maintain the illusion that the virtual world is in fact real. Therefore may the feeling of us having a real physical brain is in fact just an illusion that is hardwired into every virtual individual in a virtual world to make it "feel" real. I guess what I am trying to say is that a virtual mug or cofee or any object would feel as 'real' to a virtual being as a real object would to a real person. So according to this article, the...

The brain would only be used to control thought, which in itself is
non-physical. So why have a physical item controlling the non physical?
Again, there would be no need for a physical brain at all.

The idea of a 'physical' brain would presumably help maintain the illusion that the virtual world is in fact real. Therefore may the feeling of us having a real physical brain is in fact just an illusion that is hardwired into every virtual individual in a virtual world to make it "feel" real. I guess what I am trying to say is that a virtual mug or cofee or any object would feel as 'real' to a virtual being as a real object would to a real person. So according to this article, the brain to us (if we accept that we are virtual simulations) would feel very real and physical although it's virtual. Ofcourse that raises the question what is real which I think was the point of the article.

Anyway excellent clip, Eisengrim. I heaven to a scifi geek like me.

This is the most ridiculous theory about life I've ever heard. Here's a key quote that was left out of this clipping: “My gut feeling, and it’s nothing more than that,” [Dr. Bostrom] says, “is that there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation.” To summarize this quote, he has no idea, his thesis is based on a guess, and the entire idea laughable. His logical progression is basically: 1) It may be possible in the future to create a digitally simulated universe. 2) Since it's possible, it could have been possibly done before and we are the products of that program. Also, this idea fails at achieving any amount of philosophical relevance because it leaves the initi...

This is the most ridiculous theory about life I've ever heard. Here's a key quote that was left out of this clipping: “My gut feeling, and it’s nothing more than that,” [Dr. Bostrom] says, “is that there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation.” To summarize this quote, he has no idea, his thesis is based on a guess, and the entire idea laughable. His logical progression is basically: 1) It may be possible in the future to create a digitally simulated universe. 2) Since it's possible, it could have been possibly done before and we are the products of that program. Also, this idea fails at achieving any amount of philosophical relevance because it leaves the initial question of "where did we come from?" unanswered. If we come from a computer program, where did our programmers come from? If anyone disagrees, I'd love to hear your argument.