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

They're fighting games. They're not traditional, like SF or MK, but they're fighting games.

ignorance

Also, I wouldn't have pegged you as a Skullgirls fan.

do you know what "probably" means

there's obviously nuance

but there seems to be a completely unnuanced blanket hatred for CoD in this community
that's what i was questioning

obviously

That's... kinda why we have genres, bucko.

If you accept that our brains are nothing more than complex networks of information processing

i don't

whether we have control is irrelevant to whether it's actually possible in the first place, though, which was my main point

you can argue that i lack a basis for my hypothesis, but i don't think there's a basis for my opposition, either
and the onus is on them to demonstrate to me the possibility

until then, i'll remain skeptical

If sentience in AI were to happen, it would almost certainly be by accident.

we can't give things by accident?

come on

don't be pedantic, you obviously know what i mean

It has happened numerous times.

Unless you think that the sentience of humans (and a hell of a lot of animal species) arises from something other than neural complexity?

nothing we could ever feasibly imitate

"Americanised" versions of words, i.e. letters removed or replaced

because having superfluous "u"s where they don't need to be is such a good thing, or what

Do you suppose there are ways we could make them that eliminates chances of them suffering? Are inner turmoil and conflicts necessary to a conscious mind?

i would say the capacity to feel conflict or inner turmoil is integral to sentience, yes

so even if you were to say, "well, robots can't feel pain", well, that's kind of what makes sentience sentience, isn't it?
so if it can't feel pain or suffering or inner turmoil, it's hardly sentient in my opinion