Originally Posted by Tokyo
![]() You seem to think it's difficult to prove self-awareness. I think that I am self-aware therefore I am.
|
Honestly this really pisses me off
The difficulty in proving that you are self-aware, even using your claim, is that you can't prove that you think you are self aware. You can say it all day long, and it won't prove anything because you are simply declaring a statement without anything to support it.
|
Why do you believe that ur just trollin nao?
Can a program change it's response to an identical set of inputs? Yes, but only if you program in a random variable. Humans are constantly a random variable, and each one random in their own way. A human responds not just to the inputs, but to how those inputs make them feel, or how they were feeling when they got those inputs. Programs don't have those feelings.
50s: Inv/SS PB Emp/Dark Grav/FF DM/Regen TA/A Sonic/Elec MA/Regen Fire/Kin Sonic/Rad Ice/Kin Crab Fire/Cold NW Merc/Dark Emp/Sonic Rad/Psy Emp/Ice WP/DB FA/SM
Overlord of Dream Team and Nightmare Squad
A Computer is not intelligent. It needs a program to perform a task/s and to imitate intelligence.
Anyway, this is a cyclical argument. So for the sake of random illogical conclusions we'll say you're right and i've been wrong the entire time.
It doesn't befit you to resort to malicious arguments, Arcana, especially since you've shown you can do better.
|
A person can very much work beyond his or her "original programming," |
A computer does not have intelligence as it can not operate outside the scope of its program.
If you believe humans aren't even programmed in any sense of the word, then that statement is irrelevant. If you believe humans are programmed in some sense of the word, then the statement implies that the property of intelligence is the ability to transcend the laws of physics. In any case, the question generated a useful response: Tokyo claims not to believe human minds are programmed. In that case, the question becomes why do computers have to show an ability to transcend programming to be considered intelligent, when that requirement doesn't apply to humans.
I'm not of the opinion that any system which can fake intelligence can be considered intelligent. For one thing, humans are idiots and some can believe anything is intelligent. After all, how many people are completely convinced their toaster is talking to them? For another thing, humans are idiots, and even ANOTHER PERSON can't always manage to come across as intelligent, much less a machine. What "seems" intelligent is an inherently flawed test, because it's subjective and because we're predisposed to see faces, patterns, reason and intelligence in places where it doesn't exist. Gods weren't invented for fun, they were invented because people were SURE there was some kind of intelligence behind the sun and sky and the health of their crops. |
You can't simultaneously claim to be an expert in cognition, and claim not being capable of judging a Turing Test even in theory.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
If you believe humans aren't even programmed in any sense of the word, then that statement is irrelevant. If you believe humans are programmed in some sense of the word, then the statement implies that the property of intelligence is the ability to transcend the laws of physics. In any case, the question generated a useful response: Tokyo claims not to believe human minds are programmed. In that case, the question becomes why do computers have to show an ability to transcend programming to be considered intelligent, when that requirement doesn't apply to humans. |
Edited because I realized I countered my own argument.
Whether you believe computer intelligence (which is reached through programing) can ever reach human intelligence; we can argue back and forth.
My definition of intelligence is sentients (Self awareness). It's possible we have a disagreement on what intelligence is.
Whether you believe computer intelligence (which is reached through programing) can ever reach human intelligence; we can argue back and forth.
|
My definition of intelligence is sentients (Self awareness). It's possible we have a disagreement on what intelligence is. |
My own theory of consciousness is that it is the conclusion to an evolutionary arms race to provide our ancestors with the best possible tools to survive in complex societies. Without getting into too much detail, evidence strongly suggests that awareness of others comes before self-awareness. We first evolve to understand how others will react in order to understand how to interact with them in societies. We build models - simulations if you prefer - of the other people around us. Eventually, that collides with the ability to plan ahead, and instead of just thinking about how others will react to us, we start thinking about how we will react to how they will react to how we will react, by making a model of ourselves and adding it to the process. Eventually, that mental model of ourselves becomes consciousness.
Its our ability to apply intelligence to simulations of our own mental state that I think form the basis of what some would call "general purpose human intelligence." We're not genetically programmed to be general purpose thinkers, but we are genetically programmed to be thinkers of thinkers and that's what allows us to apply our thought processes to any possible problem that our mental model of ourselves discovers. We can think about how we want a mental model of ourselves to be, and then attempt to behave as the model suggests we should, in a feedback loop. In a sense, humans have virtualized minds.
There's something ironically appealing to me about the notion that the solution to the Chinese Room is not that somehow the simulation becomes as good as reality, but rather that actual awareness *is* a simulation also, just a biological one, and there is no "real" awareness in the sense the Chinese Room suggests.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Without getting into too much detail, evidence strongly suggests that awareness of others comes before self-awareness.
We first evolve to understand how others will react in order to understand how to interact with them in societies.... |
anywho..wow, talk about divergent topics.
What would the bind be to bind "target closest enemy." to my tab key?
http://www.change.org/petitions/ncso...city-of-heroes#
Hey. Data, Maddox. Get a room you two!
First thing I do on any toon:
/bind g "target_enemy_near"
I know I can take the underscores out but it's habit!
I'll pass on the computer intelligence vs. human intelligence debate for now...
Not sure of the proper command, but you can change this under the Options Menu as well.
|
I used to do it all the time (before switching to keymap save files). I tend to map f to target_enemy_near so its easier to hit while my fingers are on the movement keys. Follow is usually exclusive to using movement keys so I remap it to g. (Sometimes r, but r is my standard key to toggle superleaping forward for characters with SJ).
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
See I don't completely agree with that sentiment and I tend to sight Aspergers syndrome as an example of why self-awareness precedes awareness of others.
|
Moreover, the inability to perform second-order reasoning about external minds in various autistic-like disorders including Aspergers seems to go at least to some degree hand in hand with impairment in self-awareness. The more severe the inability to comprehend other minds, the more likely it appears self-awareness is impaired as well. Highly functional Aspergers are not incapable of making mental models of other people, but the further down the scale you go towards mental deficits that impair second-order reasoning, the more likely you start to see self-awareness deficits such as (lack of) embarrassment.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
The rudimentary deception displayed in those experiments could be viewed as a manipulation of external events, not necessarily that the external events are understood.
Just as a devil's advocate, I don't know if it really suggests the infant understands the subversive elements in getting something through deception other than "Hey, Action A gets Result B!"
Blue: ~Knockback Squad on Guardian~
Red: ~Undoing of Virtue on [3 guesses]~
That way, Tab cycles through enemies, and ~ targets the closest one. Works like a charm.
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
The very first thing I do when creating a new character is move that function to the ~ key in the Options window.
That way, Tab cycles through enemies, and ~ targets the closest one. Works like a charm. |
Also... there isn't any possible way to target Enemy PC's only, is there?
I farm RV quite a bit and I've always had a problem toggling through NPCs to get to the Enemy PC's.
No, there is no way to distinguish between PC and NPC. If you have specific critters you're looking for, you can target them by name, but if a player has a similar/identical name (depending on your targeting bind), you'll still get them.
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/36641/My-Little-Exalt
I never use Q for rotational movement, so Q becomes target_next and Tab target_near. I pretty much have a unique set of keybinds I load for each new character.
Considering the seemingly arbitrary clicking "hitboxes", the tendency of the cursor to select something that's right behind you and the general free-for-all chaos of many fights, it tends to be harder and more imporantly, time-consuming than it sounds.
|
Frankly, I liked it much better when programs did what I told them rather than doing what they think I clearly must have meant instead.
I never use Q for rotational movement, so Q becomes target_next and Tab target_near. I pretty much have a unique set of keybinds I load for each new character.
|
What you listed seems like a perfect solution. Thanks.