A question that is reminiscent of both Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett's work (and also of some of @gregeganSF books): what sort of things can be truly generated by simulation? As John Searle said: "No one would suppose that we could produce milk and sugar by running a computer simulation of the formal sequence in lactation and photosynthesis". Similarly, Dennett stresses that a simulated hurricane causes no floods and devastation... Or does it? Maybe if you manage to integrate an AI in the simulation, then from its point of view this would look like a real hurricane. But at least it is not a hurricane at the "level" of the programmer. Now there are also things that are "truly" generated by simulation at the level of the programmer. Think of mathematical proof. If you design a computer program to produce mathematical proofs, then it won't generate simulated mathematical proofs but true mathematical proofs. The same goes for language or music. Now the big question is : on which side of this divide does the mind fall? Is it more like milk or more like language?