Is a simulated human a human?

That depends on how you define a human. Is a human defined by its consciousness, its form, or some other factor? According to princeton's wordnet search, a human is S: (n) homo, man, human being, human (any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage). By this definition, the simulation you refer to is not human, because it is not a member of the biological family Hominidae, and it's partially defined by its form.

According to essortment.com, there are six characteristics for life: 1. Composed of cells, 2. Show organization, 3. Use Energy, 4. Homeostasis, 5. Growth, 6. Reproduction. A computer loaded with everything that makes someone conscious is not made of cells, does not maintain homeostasis, does not exhibit physical growth, and does not reproduce -- therefore, by the generally accepted definition of life, it is not alive.

I would, however, consider it to be a living being because it loosely fits the aforementioned definition (aside from reproduction) in that 1. It's seems silly to say that for something to be alive it MUST be composed of cells... 2. It does show organization, 3. It does use energy, 4. It would exhibit a mental homeostasis, 5. It would exhibit mental growth.

However, I think the important point here isn't whether or not the simulation is *alive*, but rather whether it exhibits consciousness. Given that, as far as science can tell, human consciousness is the result of our synaptic connections, were these to be simulated, the simulation would exhibit the same consciousness as a human.

Assuming that we characterize our consciousness as the primary factor which makes us human, I would say that it is immoral to turn off the simulation only insomuch as it is immoral to kill a human.

No the person is not alive because it has no soul and dosen't hae the characteristics of living thing.

I would say no. It would have no soul.