Are Commanders sapient?

Well other then a few billion years of natural selection crafting a brain wired to function in a natural environment.

But I guess the same could be said about the commanders, depending on how much time has gone past.

Ahh sorry I misread units for the commander.

Now that I think about it units wouldn't even be separate entities. (If the UI is to be believed) commanders are capable of collecting all sensory information from their units as well as controlling them. In effect units are to a commander as limbs are to us.

This question has no obvious answer cause there is no "sapience" definition.

Most of known definitions are based on "humans as sapient, everything else is not, so let's find out what is so different in humans". I believe that most adequate definition is "ability to make foolish things without any logical reason".

[philosophy]
In throneel's definition:

Expert systems got perfect match. Any complex statefull expert system is individual, as it's current state (and therefore decisions made from particular situation) depends not only on data it has accumulated so far, but also on state change history. That is - if you copy memory from one expert system to another and then launch another expert system anew on this data, it will be in different state and will make different decisions from same situations.

Are expert systems self-aware? Well, of course. They should know what they are, why they are and what they should do to be efficient.

But actually, this definition is simply wrong. What we actually put into "sapience" thing is sociality - ability to bound relations above reason. Friendship, betrayal - it's all things from sapience world. Expert system is incapable of making friends or betrayal - it capable of making temporary alliances and then breaking them when alliance is no longer needed. And every expert system expect other expert system to do the same, so it's not betrayal - it's logical flow of things.

Actually, if you want ACU to be "sapient", but not "expert system" you need to stick with "illogical" behavior for ACUs. Anything else perfectly matches expert system.

But there is other thing that expect systems are incapable of, but humans are - goal (re)definition. Expert system could not raise above it's goal. If it's programmed to obliterate everything it will pursue this goal no matter how advanced it is. This is because any logic need a basis and a goal. Basis and goal are external things for logic, so it could not change them. But again, goal placement is "illogical" by it's nature - you set your top goals out of nowhere without any logical reasons to do so.
[/philosophy]

So, now, if we stick with "capable of illogical foolish actions" as definition of sapience, then question is: are ACUs really need to be sapient for war purposes?

Answer is obvious: of course not. War has clear goal - survive and destroy any foe. No goal placement is needed. War is all about logic and prediction (if you think that insight or intuition are nice too - they are also logical decisions made by your subconscious), so nothing illogical or foolish is needed.

Actually, any ACU that will try to be social, establish some relations with other ACUs, which are cold "brutal self-replicating machines of war", will lose with 100% probability.

So, for gameplay scale lore purposes ACUs should be non-sapient. For lore outside gameplay or for any kind of "story" inside PA universe sapience is required as any story needs hero development (which is impossible without sapience - expert system learning new things is not development).

I may suggest two directions - first, non-sapient expert systems became sapient, thus forming factions/governments/social structures/whatever and continuing their war in more clustered faction. Second - sapient ACUs within some kind of Ork-alike society (maybe with MMO-alike respawn to beat fear of death problem, if applicable (should be, actually)) with constant internal fight for superiority. It could be used as-is within some kind of tournament story or could be driven by some internal/external thread for this society (in case of MMO-alike respawn - some ACU is planning to destroy respawn points to preserve his dominance).

TLDR: Outside of story sapience is not needed, as "sapience" equals "illogical" and there is nothing illogical in war.

It is a bit ridiculous to believe that if some matter form into some certain forms, they would magically get a extra property called consciousness, so I believe what Daniel Dennett said that consciousness or sentience are fictional things and doesn't exist.

Every time I read the title of this thread I think of Sapient Pearwood. Sorry I had to say it since no one else was.

Again people, you're forgetting the right question. It's not "would Commanders be sapient?" For what we know, they could be humans soldiers that pushed the cybernetics thing a bit too far as well as an expert system created by Skynet. They could be sapient or not, both would fit(*).
The question is, should Commanders be sapient. Maybe I should edit the thread's name...

I argue that yes, they should, because there is kind of no point in playing an expert system. Hence the Zeroth law referenced above.
And with all the over-the-topness of PA's concept, a culture of Commanders having fun wasting galaxies after galaxies in an endless anarchic war would just perfectly fit in.
All the fun of an endless war without the emo bulldust overload! What more could you wish for?

Now, for those who don't want the Commander be sapient, but . What is that you find more interesting this way? How is it more fun for you?
(Genuine question btw, no sarcasm here)



(*)Some may argue that sapient beings couldn't bear the condition of a Commander. I argue that it's ridiculous.
First, "sapient" doesn't mean "human". Even if so far humans are the only known sapient, it doesn't mean that any sapient being has to think exactly like a human.
Second, I personally know someone that would bear such condition well, and enjoy himself a lot. Hell, he would probably choose this life over the one he can live in our today's world.
Sure, he's probably to be considered insane on some accounts (which doesn't mean that he isn't a nice guy or that he can't live well in our society, mind you) but this is kind of relative. In another society, he would be considered sane - it's the society that we would consider insane. But would you argue that our society is that much sane anyway?

I also saw the argument that sapience doesn't exist. I'll skip the reasons why this is plain wrong IMHO, let's just say that then, you shouldn't mind either way.

Yet even if it conflicts with lore (small part of it known from trailer)?

Edit: Anyway, how you may talk about sapience without definition of sapience? Your first-post definition is obviously flawed.

That's easy. I look it up in the dictionary, and then talk about it. Anyone who's still arguing over terminology is wasting time.

Frankly most of this topic is speculation and opinion.

People might not agree, but there is no correct answer.

It's a safe bet to assume that the best machine wins. A machine with a greater capacity for learning and understanding is definitely going have the advantage. Or as a wise woman once put it:

"Wisdom works well with winning wars" - Captain Jayne Cobb, of the galaxy class SDF-1, in opposition to The Immortal God Emperor over the destruction of the Tardis. Translated from Klingon, stardate 6094 BC.

And a fist full of luck.

Commanders are religious. They must blindly and swiftly obey the will of their deity (aka me). The only path to failure is straying from the will of the deity.

At least, that will be my excuse when I lose a game.

:lol:

So what have you find in the dictionary? Enlighten us, please.

Capacity for learning and understanding is nothing about sapience. It's more like the opposite.

Are they sapient\Sentient

Depends on their origin story:

I forget the SupCom one, however TA had the 2 races reach their giant metal robot status in 2 distinct ways.

One of them evolved (technologically or otherwise) to the point where they could transfer their consciousness into the big metal robots.

The other simply decided to pilot them.

In the one case you could argue that the Machine was making the decisions, in the other case the machine is not. Although it's worth noting that the commander in this second case, was likely refering to hte pilot rather than the machine.

Therefore it's probably fair to say in both these cases that the commander is\was sapient\sentient.

Should the commanders be sapient?

Erm No. They should do what I tell them, and nothing else. Otherwise why am I playing?

Protip: You are the Commander. The Commander does the things he tells himself to do.

But I thought the entire point of TA and Supcom was that you are the commander?

As in the unit on the battlefield is you, not something that you're just ordering around from the other end of a space telescope.

Perhaps I have missed the point being argued then.

The way I see it....
Is the Commander sapient?
If this question is being asked with the given that the commander is the player, then the question makes no sense as the player is clearly sapient.

If on the other hand we are asking the question from a story-line perspective, then see my previous TA related answer. ie it depends on the back story.

Should the commander be Sapient?
If this question is being asked in the sense that the Commander should make decisions independently of me, then my previous answer of 'No' continues to stand as my opinion' (Although if this were possible, then it would clearly be possible to turn off)

Alternatively perhaps the question is again a story-line driven question, in which case, I'm not so bothered either way