Bitflip

You can also just click on the field, then wait to not trigger a normal double click, and then click again, and you'll be presented with all the options. This also works for other fields like functions.

In previous games it's been on the key to the left of the 1. On US keyboards, this is the tilde key, on other keyboards it's the caret or another special character. Check out the US keyboard layout and then map it onto yours: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/ANSI_Keyboard_Layout_Diagram_with_Form_Factor.svg/1313px-ANSI_Keyboard_Layout_Diagram_with_Form_Factor.svg.png

yeah but it isnt midnight nor the tenth in Spain. you know the time the game is to be released? Fair enough. Didn't realize OP lives in Spain.

Depends on the timezone, not everybody lives in the US.

Sure that's not something you can change in the settings?

I think this hinges on the definition of "alive" and life in general, which is poorly defined and not at all agreed upon. So making an ethical conclusion based on a poorly defined concept seems rather dangerous to me. As far as the "illusion of freedom, feelings and even self awareness" goes, I'd argue that this is no different in a deterministic brain. Note that this in no ways diminishes the actual subjective experience of pain and joy, and therefore it is irrelevant to an ethical value system that uses these experiences as axioms to determine what should be deemed good or bad.

Well, our brain is a computer as well. You could, at least in theory, build a computer out of rocks, so building one out of organic matter is definitely conceivable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetware_computer. I guess the question comes down to whether or not the brain can be simulated by a turing machine. This further leads to the question of whether the brain is computable, which implies the question of whether a subset of the physical universe is computable. To date, there is no real reason to think otherwise, and no reason to believe the brain is non-deterministic. Of course, we don't know this for sure - I'd just rather err on the side of caution and treat the hypothetical simulated brain no different than ours.

Our brain is just a program running its functions as well. It's just that it's hardware is organic rather than based on silicon. The matter of which the hardware consists of is irrelevant if the functionality is the same. I don't agree with this sort of organic chauvinism :tongue: For reasons that I outlined before, in my opinion your statement "but it's all simulated emotion and behavior, not real ones" does not make any sense. There is no qualitative difference between simulated and "real" emotions if the simulation is sufficiently comprehensive. We can't even know for sure that our emotions are not simulated, so who are we to say any emotion of which the origin is known to be synthetic is to be regarded as qualitative different than ours?

Let's say you lose an arm and replace it with a prosthesis that simulates the electrical impulses that were previously generated by your biological arm. The arm is sophisticated and advanced enough that you don't notice any difference to your previous arm. Does that give you less rights than a person with a fleshy arm? Of course not. Now let's take that thought experiment a bit further. Let's say you lose a few neurons in your brain. Not enough to render you dysfunctional, but enough to give you some minor impairment. So you implant a chip with a hypothetical artificial neural network that can simulate those neurons, interface with your biological ones, and restore your old cognitive capabilities. Do you have less rights now than before? I'm sure you'll agree that that would not make much moral sense. But now over time you gradually replace all your old biological neurons with simulated ones, that can transmit information in exactly the same way as the biological ones. Now we don't have artificial neural networks today that can do this, but suppose in 2277 we have. You also replace your old meaty organs and limbs with more robust synthetic ones. Where is the point at which you stop being human? After the first artificial neuron? After the last? What we consider "actual" consciousness and artificial consciousness is a false dichotomy in my opinion. There is no difference between simulated emotions and actual emotions if the simulation can capture the patterns of the real emotional patterns in the brain. The suffering would be just as real, and to say otherwise is morally highly questionable in my view.

I think consciousness is a phenomenon that emerges from certain patterns of information. It does not matter what the source of that information is, whether it be biological neurons or simulated ones, or how it is being represented - all you need is a way to represent certain patterns or states over time, and as we know all we need for that is binary data. So if the binary representations over time of the states of an artificial intelligence perfectly resembles the (hypothetical) binary representations of a human intelligence, then there is no difference between the two. Therefore, the AI would obviously be entitled to the same rights that we think humans are entitled to. What happens when the AI is intelligent, but differs from human intelligence? Then it depends on the degree of difference, and the spectrum of their possible experiences. If they can experience as much pain and pleasure as a human, or more, then they should be entitled to at least the same rights as a human. If their spectrum of conscious experience is smaller than that of a human, then the discussion is similar to that about animal rights, and the applied judgement should be the same as the one we apply to the question of whether we think a dog or chimpanzee has more rights than an ant. So if you can't tell the difference between an artificial intelligence (AI) and an actual intelligence (AI), how do we know that our consciousness is not simulated? Well, we don't. But it doesn't matter, because all that matters is the information, and not the source of it.