Okay, but, fair enough, now that you're here (and you're a person with a name and history attached to it), it's less of a waste of time to ponder this.
So personally, I'm not really interested in the hypotheticals of emergent behavior and all that and whether something without memory that works as ours does could develop some different but practically identical form of sentience.
That is possible, but at the end of that hypothetical chain of thoughts might be an outcome in which the human is not the top of the food chain anymore.
Which is not to be understood as "oh god, I am full of fear of being obsolete", but "why would I even just spend a second on something that leads to the obsolescence of my kind".
The definition of sentience I believe we must use is one of skin in the game. Only what is bound by the same constraints as we are (mortality, disease, physical presence) may be treated as equal or equal-ish by us, because only then it has constraints that force it to do the same.
Not sure if that answers the questions you've had, but that's that.
So personally, I'm not really interested in the hypotheticals of emergent behavior and all that and whether something without memory that works as ours does could develop some different but practically identical form of sentience.
That is possible, but at the end of that hypothetical chain of thoughts might be an outcome in which the human is not the top of the food chain anymore. Which is not to be understood as "oh god, I am full of fear of being obsolete", but "why would I even just spend a second on something that leads to the obsolescence of my kind".
The definition of sentience I believe we must use is one of skin in the game. Only what is bound by the same constraints as we are (mortality, disease, physical presence) may be treated as equal or equal-ish by us, because only then it has constraints that force it to do the same.
Not sure if that answers the questions you've had, but that's that.