I also concede that a "form" of intelligence/sentience could emerge. Presently the form is called "artificial," I'd say.

And you're right... not all scifi argues machine evolves to humanity. I meant to refer to that body of scifi that does. And the body that explores the "what make us human," indeed that's the good stuff. Alex Garland's Ex Machina comes to mind. I absolutely loved that film. The ending was chilling!

But I never claimed that a person with synthetic augmentations was any less human/sentient than those with all their natural parts. I likewise never claimed that "we have already achieved machine sentience."

And here's some food for thought... Regardless if one believes in God or not, is it really that offensive to claim that our humanity is unique in its sentience? I find it offensive when some claim that aliens built the Egyptian pyramids. (It sure provides great fodder for some wondrous science fiction, indeed.)

I will re-assert in other words, for the sake of clarity... That sentience is not an emergent property. That is the foundational definition upon which I contemplate the mystery (i.e. the reality of our being that science will never develop sufficiently to fully explain) of our existence. I for one, enjoy the endeavor of employing my sentience to explore & investigate our wondrous universe and to equally explore & relate with you and call you a friend in spite of our disagreement. Cheers!

[1] https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/263867/the-story-beh...

So apparently someone submitted a paper that was entirely nonsense. This was intentional but not explicit as it was just a stunt. The paper had all the right fancy/technical words, the right structure, likely even images, and apparently a convincing conclusion. But it was all about nothing, nothing substantial at all, nada. Had a peer reviewer actually read the paper, it would have not been published and summarily tossed. But it did go print and oh boy, the journal's board/powers-that-be were pissed. I didn't follow the story much past that point but I think something was supposedly proposed to prevent this.

(1) But there is an important provision to be considered by the faithful: the teaching of evolution cannot patently claim that there is no God. It is outside the scope of any science to disprove (or prove) the existence of God. And thus it is a misrepresentation of the science for any of the faithful to claim otherwise. The Church respects science in its endeavor to sincerely discover truth; Pope John Paul II once put it as such in his writings (I am paraphrasing here): "Faith forms reason, reason informs faith."

(2) Darwin's work was in fact not motivated by a sense of atheism [1]. In fact, I believe that I once discovered that in the Forward to On the Origin of Species, he references God in a positive note. The exact comment escapes me--perhaps someone with the actual text can verify this.

[1] https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-12041.xml

And maybe later on, rankings. As more accomplishments are entered, one goes from amateur to master to ninja, etc. But I don't think that's particularly important, just a thought. Either way, good job with HomeownerLog!