Computer didn't try to emulate "sentient personality". It tried to emulate an enemy intelligent enough for Data. That is strong evidence, that number 3 is true in Star Trek universe

@Deltharis The Enterprise computer is a counterexample.

@Taemyr the answer is arguing why that computer isn't sentient. Using Enterprise computer as counterexample is a circular argument, conclusion as part of the proof.

@Deltharis No. That part of the answer is arguing that the argument for a sentient Enterprise is fallacious. He gives some arguments as to why Enterprise should not be considered sentient, which boils down to that Enterprise is not running programs that is sentient.

@Deltharis Also, we know for a fact that the Enterprise is not considered sentient within the star trek universe. Because the ships computer does not receive the privileges that being sentient entails.

@Taemyr I don't see the difference between arguing that the argument for a sentient Enterprise is fallacious and arguing why that computer isn't sentient. Meta-level on which we work (arguing argument vs arguing thesis) does not change the basic underlying question. And I'm not even saying that it is sentient - I'm just criticising the argument that constitues almost half of this answer.

@Deltharis The first is an interesting question even when we know that the Enterprise is nonsentient. The other isn't.

@Taemyr that does not change a thing! Even if the argument said that sun revolves the earth you CAN't use "but it's the other way round" as a counter, no matter how true that is.

No one is using "but it's the other way round" as a counter. Consider if the question was "Everyone knows that gravity causes objects to fall towards one another, how can the earth orbit the sun" and the answer was "The assertion that gravity causes objects to fall towards one another is false." Also, I think recent edits to the question makes the point moot.

But... eh... There are two ways you can approach a discussion - either you go "No, your facts are wrong, argument is pointless" or you enter the discussiona nd play by it's rules

out base is a possible argument for computer sentience - that sentience emerges from sufficiently big computing power

answer we're discussing tries to counter that point

we have an in-universe example that that happened - what I said

but Enterprise computer being sentient or not is a conclusion the base argument gets at

at this point you can't use it as a fact

Enterprise not being sentient is not a conclusion of the argument. Enterprise not being sentient is an assumption in the original question, an assumption that is demonstrable within canon. - Or at least it's demonstable that Enterprise is not considered to be sentient.