zlacker

I guess I am trying to assert here that gp and the context here isn't really about arguing the philosophic material here. And just this whole line feels so fleshed out now. It just feels rehearsed at this point but maybe that's just me.

And like, I'm sorry, it just doesn't make sense! Why are we supposed to be sad? It's like borrowing a critique of LLMs and arbitrarily applying it humans as like a gotcha, but I don't see it. Like are we all supposed to be metaphysical dualists and devestated by this? Do we all not believe in like.. nuerons?

>>beepbo+(OP)
I think I'm having more fun than you are in this conversation, and I'm the one who thinks he's an LLM.

>>sowbug+R8
Eh, it never hurts to try! I know I am yelling into the void, I just want to stress again, we all "think we are an LLM" if by that you are just asserting some materialist grounding to consciousness or whatever. And even then, why would you not have more fun whether you think that or not?! Like I am just trying to make meta point about this discourse, your still placing yourself in this imaginary opposing camp which pretends to have fully reckoned with some truth, and its just pretty darn silly and if I can be maybe actually critical, clearly coming from a narcissistic impulse.

But alas I see the writing on the wall here either way. I guess I am supposed to go cry now because I have learned I am only my brain.

>>beepbo+A11
This is a funny chain.. of exchanges, cheers to you both :)

At the risk of ruining 'sowbug having their fun, I'm not sure how Julian Jaynes theory of origins of consciousness aligns against your assumption / reduction that the point (implied by the wiki article link) was supposed to be "I am only my brain." I think they were being polemical, the linked theory is pretty fascinating actually (regardless of whether it's true; and it is very much speculative), and suggests a slow becoming-conscious process which necessitates a society with language.

Unless you knew that and you're saying that's still a reductionist take?.. because otherwise the funny moment (I'd dare guessing shared by 'sowbug) is that your assumption of fixed chain of specific point-counter-point-... looks very Markovian in nature :)

(I'm saying this in jest, I hope that's coming through...)