I would think a game like Doom would be different then say, Red Orchestra. Just because they're both FPS's doesn't mean they're the same. Too many variables.

That's like saying all fighting games are the same. Over simplifying is doing it injustice if you ask me.

you could argue that all fighting games are the same, and i wouldn't really have much of a problem with it

what i'm saying, though, is that fighting games, even though they're pretty same-y, have a much higher level of diversity than FPS games do

If it was just a passing "Oh, I don't really think it'll happen"

oh please
you're honestly taking issue with how i'm saying it?

"i don't think it'll happen" is really what my assertion boils down to--that's all i've been saying this entire thread
i obviously can't be certain about anything, but i make statements of certainty all the time, usually for effect

what's odd is that you're only taking issue with it now on this particular subject

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 04:43:11 PM

"two people fight each other" is NOT a good definition of a fighting game
"people shooting each other" is a good definition of a FPS/TPS game

Two people fighting each other is just a simplified definition of fighting games, just like how you've simplified the definition of FPS games.

it's not, though

because you could apply that simplified fighting game definition to an FPS game
but FPS games are not fighting games

you CAN'T apply the simplified FPS definition to a fighting game, unless you're playing a fighting game with guns, which... i don't really know too many, if at all

Why would I go there?

What I mean is that the initial development of sentience in the machine will be an involuntary process. Let's do away with the word spontaneous and phrase it like this: upon reaching a certain degree of neural complexity, the machine will develop sentience as a result. However, the establishment of this complexity will not be as a result of deliberate, on-the-spot human programming.

that might be an even worse wording

but whatever, you meant that it would be a fluke--we would be experimenting on AI, and then as it turned out, we accidentally made a sentience, yes? and we probably wouldn't notice until much later, yes?

again, discussing whether this could ever happen, to me, is the same thing as discussing spontaneity in the other sense

it's as pointless as quibbling over whether there's a god

You mean other than the statistical improbability of being hit by a meteor.

right--just like the statistical improbability of us producing a sentient AI, deliberately or otherwise

not that there's any statistics on that--the point being, i think our brain chemistry is too complex to be replicated
deliberately or otherwise

that's my argument

Because humans being unable to deliberately programme a machine with sentience =/= a machine being able to be sentient. Pendulate and I have stated several times that if sentience arises in machines, it will be spontaneous and not the result of some on-the-spot programming, yet you still appear to have an issue with this proposition.

well, again, that just seems like too ridiculous of a question to ask me

"do you think something could happen spontaneously?"

"uhhhh... maybe!"

like, i can't definitively answer "yes" or "no" to that question without logically contradicting the very nature of spontaneity.
making it a pointless question.

I doubt we will ever have the capacity to grant something the ability to feel anyway; if it arises, it will arise spontaneously.

so now you're making my argument now

why must i justify something that you already believe

And neither can you. Saying "sentience is not the result of complex neural/computational networks"

but i've never said that

just because sentience is the result of our specific neural network doesn't really mean anything

I mean, if I were to say "our best hypotheses in economics support the benefits of free trade" and you were to claim that isn't the case; yeah, you're making a negative statement, but you're not off the hook for justifying why you claim it.

i can justify it, sure, but if you're asking me to prove that we can't?
that's not gonna be logically possible

i can tell you that the reason why i don't think we'll ever make a sentient AI is because I think sentience is just too complex of a phenomenon to ever be perfectly imitated, but that's not gonna convince you of anything, is it

i'm just not a fan of justifications if they're just going to waste people's time

to say that our brain is a "complex network" would be a COLOSSAL understatement

someone should demonstrate to me how we could perfectly replicate it

that you're logic is dumb

*your

As someone who's played all of those shooters you mentioned, they all play and feel very different

i've played them all, too
they all feel the same to me

except TF2, but that's just because of its graphics

Battlefield has vehicles, while CoD doesn't, for example. CoD has killstreaks, Battlefield doesn't. Battlefield has classes each with differing abilities, CoD doesn't. Battlefield maps are huge and the games tend to be long and more slowly paced, while CoD has much smaller maps with shorter, more hectic games.

battlefield having vehicles is actually one difference, i'll grant you that
but that's only one so far

Battlefield not having killstreaks isn't a real difference--you could always just count yourself

having classes isn't much of a difference, to be honest
neither is game speed or map size--all games vary in terms of speed and map size

They both play very differently, you simplified it down to "You have a gun and shoot people", of course they're going to sound the same when you put it like that

you wouldn't be able to simplify fighting games in the same way

"two people fight each other" is NOT a good definition of a fighting game
"people shooting each other" is a good definition of a FPS/TPS game

And you're yet to demonstrate why artificial intelligences would be excluded from the ability to perceive, feel or be self-aware.

it's not my job to

that which can be presented w/o evidence can be dismissed without evidence

the onus is on the person who's making the positive assertion--and i'm making no positive assertions
i know you don't agree with that logic, because it's inconvenient, but

No, it wouldn't.

it's my exact definition of sentience, though
the very first thing it mentions is that sentience is the ability to feel

That seemed to be what Pendulate was implying when you used his consideration to demonstrate your point.

then that's pendulate's fault for not wording his post properly--i'm of course referring to all sentient life

i mean, as i usually do in these types of discussions <_<

Quote from: Verbatim on June 21, 2015, 04:07:26 PM

present me with a better one

Well we could just use the actual definition, which is the ability to experience subjectively.

Which doesn't at all require any similarity to human experience besides some aspect of subjectivity and, presumably, self-awareness.

if you're going to copy the wikipedia definition of sentience, you should probably not leave out the two words "feel" and "perceive"
because that would contradict you, and help my definition instead

no one's strictly talking about human experience

Unless you want to coin a new term for computer sentience (intelience? Swidt) then I don't think this is misusing it.

i think "artificial intelligence" is good enough

I'd also take this to mean that you'd support sentient AI in this case? Assuming they can't suffer in ways that we can, and they can perform complex tasks in short amounts of time?

of course

to call that sentience, though, i feel undermines the definition of the word

under this definition of sentience, you would have to concede that insects are sentient
you realize

Ignorant?  There are fists. You punch people with them.

then uncharted is a fighting game, too

I mean, there's no reason you shouldn't be a Skullgirls fan.

yeah, there is