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.

The punch line here will be when the rest of us learn that Umbral and Tokyo are actually two people's ELIZA-based posting bots having an automated argument.

Why do you believe that ur just trollin nao?

I can prove that I think I'm self-aware. I'm thinking that I am self-aware right now. What more proof do you need?

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.

Define "malicious." I was serious.


"Original" has nothing to do with anything: the statement was:

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.



The twist in the tail, and in my opinion the purpose Turing really had to proposing the Turing Test, is that your statement above not only says that the Turing Test isn't a good judge of intelligence, but also you aren't. And I think, given Turing's historical dispositions, he was very cogniscent of the fact that the best way for someone to argue against him was to claim they were themselves bad judges of intelligence. Which means Turing would be maneuvering them into being unable to claim the high ground of being able to state what intelligence actually is.

You can't simultaneously claim to be an expert in cognition, and claim not being capable of judging a Turing Test even in theory.

Then you're just getting into the semantic debate of "in what sense are we using the word." computer intelligence (Which is artificial for now and I personally believe will never reach true intelligence) is only reached through programing.

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.

I believe it can, but that's not relevant to whether computers can be intelligent, because intelligence is not ordinarily considered a binary property, but a range.


That's a problem with debates about intelligence in general: the terms aren't used the same way colloquially as they do in the context of cognition. And human intelligence is extremely difficult to talk about out of context of consciousness, particularly because I believe human intelligence is at this point completely intertwined with consciousness.

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.

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.

anywho..wow, talk about divergent topics.

What would the bind be to bind "target closest enemy." to my tab key?

Well, personally I'd just open the options window, click on the keybind tab, find "Target nearest enemy" and alter the bind key. (personally I use C)

Not sure of the proper command, but you can change this under the Options Menu as well.

Haha, in the OP's defense, I have been playing this game since closed beta, and I had NO idea I could do this either. Ahhh... This is going to make my gaming experience easier.

Angel Red
"We're heroes. Fighting injustice is the thing we do." ~Rebel Scum

Sam had it correct: bind KEY target_enemy_near

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).

You can't use an example of a divergent issue in an individual to determine what "normal" is. Individuals with Asperger's syndrome are, by definition, not normal. Of course, Piaget would agree with you insofar as the ability to view things from an internal standpoint develops before the ability to perceive from an external standpoint (and Asperger's isn't so much the lack of development of empathy insomuch as the retarded development of it). However, since self-awareness and empathy are neither mutually exclusive, binary attributes (as evidenced by the fact that some people are more self aware or empathic than others) or exclusive to humans (which are oftentimes considered to be the only true intelligent beings), it's hard to argue that the exclusive presence of one or the other is the primary hallmark of intelligence.

Incidentally, I meant in the evolutionary sense. Evolution invented the brain mechanics to understand others before it then built upon that to create a sense of self. That doesn't mean one is actually dependent on the other in an actual functioning mind.

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.

I wonder how Piaget would have responded to modern experiments that suggest even infants less than six months old are capable of the mental process of deception, which requires at least a rudimentary notion of external mental states. There's almost no way deception could be learned by that time, which strongly suggests a genetic ability to construct at least rudimentary external mental state models and act in response to them.

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.

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.

I actually like that setup, ty.

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.

Ctrl+Tab is the default for closest enemy.

Click for Hot Sun Splitter Action

You can also just map 'target nearest enemy' to your e.g. middle mouse button. Best of both worlds.

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.

Good idea. I tried swapping the Tab to be the nearest target, then got frustrated when I couldn't cycle through the mobs to find specific targets, so I changed it back to the default.

What you listed seems like a perfect solution. Thanks.

Angel Red
"We're heroes. Fighting injustice is the thing we do." ~Rebel Scum