> Can we agree to remove "in any scientific sense" from there? No we can't, that's the entire point. As soon as you remove that, you remove any testable, repea

> Can we agree to remove "in any scientific sense" from there? No we can't, that's the entire point. As soon as you remove that, you remove any testable, repeatable observation, which is the whole point. > I think I can imagine a patient who contacts a horrific virus that cuts off all external and bodily sensations. Think harder. There's a reason some patients are declared "brain dead". There are observable processes associated with human sentience, e.g. brain waves and body functions. If one fails (e.g. the heart stops and the vital signs collapse), they can sometimes be restored externally. If both fail and cannot be restored, the patient is declared dead and thus no longer sentient in the scientific (i.e. observable and testable) sense. Everything else is religion. It's really that simple. edit: as far machines go, different criteria have to be selected, because obviously language models don't have a pulse or emit delta waves. edit2: also forgot to mention that the perception and interaction proposal applies to the system (or organism) in principle - accidents or illnesses don't count; a system that's by design incapable of interacting with and perceiving its environment cannot be said to be sentient (again, because I cannot stress this enough: in an observable/testable way).