Humans also have territory, hunting and hierarchy. Everything that a lion does, humans also do but more complicated. So I think we would be able to understand the new creature.

But the problem is really that the lion that speaks is not the same creature as the lion we know. Everything the lion we know wants to say can already be said through its body language or current faculties. The goldfish grows to the size of its container.

Thats only a minor subset of our thoughts. If you were going hiking what kind of thoughts would you have? "There are trees there", "Its raining I should get cover", "I can hide in the bushes", "Im not sure if I cna climb over this or not". "There is x on the left and y on the right", "the wind went away" etc etc etc etc.

The origins of human language were no doubt communicating such simple thoughts and not about your deep inner psyche and the complexities of the 21st century.

There's actually quite a bit of evidence that all language, even complex words, are rooted in spatial relationships.

The whole "math is a universal" language is particularly laughable to me considering it is a formal system and the universe is observably irregular.

As I am wont to say: regularity is only ever achieved at the price of generality.

You're conflating two different questions. I'm not arguing LLMs are mature or reliable enough for high-stakes tasks. My argument is about why they produce output that creates the illusion of understanding in the language domain, while the same techniques applied to other domains (video generation, molecular modeling, etc.) don't produce anything resembling 'understanding' despite comparable or greater effort.

The accuracy problems you're describing actually support my point: LLMs navigate linguistic structures effectively enough to fool people into thinking they understand, but they can't verify their outputs against reality. That's exactly what you'd expect from a system that only has access to the map (language) and not the territory (reality).

Absolutely, it is world model building.

When are we as humans creative outside our training data? It's very rare we actually discover something truly novel. This is often random, us stumbling onto it, brute force or purely by being at the right place at the right time.

On the other hand, until it's proven it'd likely be considered a hallucination. You need to test something before you can dismiss it. (They did burn witches for discoveries back in the day, deemed witchcraft). We also reduce randomness and pre-train to avoid overfitting.

Day to day human creative outputs as humans are actually less exciting when you think about it further, we build on pre-existing knowledge. No different to good prompt output with the right input. Humans are just more knowledgeable & smarter at the moment.

The LLM doesn't 'know' more than us - it has compressed more patterns from text than any human could process. That's not the same as knowledge. And yes, the training algorithms deliberately skew the distribution to maintain coherent output - without that bias toward seen patterns, it would generate nonsense. That's precisely why it can't be creative outside its training distribution: the architecture is designed to prevent novel combinations that deviate too far from learned patterns. Coherence and genuine creativity are in tension here

I'm afraid I'd need to see evidence before accepting that humans navigate 'pre-carved channels' in the same way LLMs do. Human learning involves direct interaction with physical reality, not just pattern matching on symbolic representations. Show me the equivalence or concede the point.

> You're right - I mixed up cerebellum/cerebrum/cortex terminology. My bad. The cases I'm referencing are hydrocephalus patients with severely compressed cerebral tissue who maintained normal cognitive function. The point about structural variation not precluding consciousness stands.

Hmm, I don't think it would be dogmatic to call hydrocephalus-induced changes 'structural variation.' Structural variation would be the thickness of subcortical bands or something like that - something where if you take 100 people, you'll see some sort of canonical distribution around a population mean.

Instead, you're describing a disease-induced change (structural yes, but not variation but instead pathology).

We're now in a different regime; we don't expect just any disease to reduce consciousness, so it stands to reason that hydrocephalus would not necessarily reduce consciousness.

I do not think there is really such thing as a p-zombie. If you simulate feelings and act on them, that is the same thing as having feelings. Including feelings of self-awareness.

I think p-zombine is inherently self-contradictory. It's impossible to have _exactly_ the same behavior as someone truly conscious without actually being conscious.

I doubt it, because my definition implies that consciousness is not that interesting. It's just the feeling of self-awareness, which can be independent of actual self awareness.

If you have a phantom limb, you feel "conscious" of the extra limb even if it's not a real demonstration of self-awareness.

Animal Intelligence is an emergent phenomena resulting from many neurons coordinating. Conciousness is the feeling that all of those subsystems working together as a single thing, even if they aren't

Philosophers are known for being rich, that's a claim being made here?

Maybe Jean Luc Picard should've lost that court case. Obviously we as the audience want to have our heroes win against some super callous guy who wants to kill our hero (and audience stand in for anyone who is neurodivergent) Data, but the argument was pretty weak, because Data often acted in completely alien ways that jeopardized the safety of the crew, and the way that those issues came up was due to him doing things that were not compatible with what we perceive as consciousness. But also, in that episode, they make a point of trying to prove that he was conscious by showing that he engaged in behavior that wasn't goal oriented, like keeping keepsakes and mementos of his friends, his previous relationship with Tasha, and his relationship with his cat. That was an attempt at proving that he was conscious too, but the argument from doubt is tough because how can you prove that a rock is not conscious - and if that can't be proved, should we elevate human rights to a rock?

consciousness is the feeling of self awareness. I suppose you could prove it as much as any other feeling, by observing the way that people behave

1. You do. You probably have a different version of that and are saying I'm wrong merely for not holding your definition.

2. That directly addresses your point. In abstract it shows they're basically no different to multimodal models, train with different data types and it still works, perhaps even better. They train LLMs with images, videos, sound, and nowadays even robot sensor feedback, with no fundamental changes to the architecture see Gemini 2.5.

3. That's merely an additional input point, give it sensors or have a human relay that data. Your toe is relaying it's sensor information to your brain.

The first article is about someone missing a cerebellum, not part of their cerebrum. That's the motor and balance part of the brain, and as you might expect, the subject of the article has deficits in motor control and balance.

The Biology StackExchange answer just says that frontal lobotomies don't kill you. It doesn't say that lobotomized people function normally.

The other two articles are just misreporting on hydrocephalus. This is a condition where fluid build-up compresses the brain tissue, making it appear like a large part of the brain is missing in CT scans. The pressure from the fluid is actually compressing the brain. While it can damage the brain, there is no way to tell from the scans how much, if any, brain matter was destroyed. Hydrocephalus usually causes death or severe deficits, but occasionally it doesn't.

Even assuming though that it were all true and people could function normally with little or no brain, that doesn't really tell us anything about LLMs, but rather just uppends all of neuroscience. It would seem to imply the brain isn't doing the thinking and perhaps we have something else like an intangible soul.