> Every known sentient being is a finite state machine.
I know this is just a cutesy slogan, but how could you possibly know whether a living creature is a finite state machine? What would it even mean? I know I don't respond identically to identical stimuli presented on different occasions ….
Mostly, yes, but I do think there's a real point here as well.
> how could you possibly know whether a living creature is a finite state machine?
As I understand it, physicists don't really know whether the physical world has a finite number of states, or an infinite number. I think they tend to lean toward finite, though.
Even if it's infinite, I doubt it's of consequence. That is to say, I doubt that sentience depends on the physical possibility of an infinite number of states. (Of course, if it turns out the physical world only has a finite number of states, that demonstrates that sentience is compatible with the finite-states constraint.)
> What would it even mean?
Systems can be modelled as finite state machines. Sentient entities like people are extremely sophisticated systems, but that's just a matter of degree, not of category.
> I know I don't respond identically to identical stimuli presented on different occasions
Right, because you're in a different state. You'll never be in the same state twice. We don't need to resort to non-determinism.
Obnoxious, I mean, trivial, answer: Just make "occasions" a variable. Assuming your lifetime is finite, you could simply assign each point in time to a value, and there you have it: a finite mapping from each moment to a state.
