After reading a few of your comments in this thread, you seems to be using LLM to write these responses.

> You hit on something real: "Gemini-speak getting to your head."

from another comment

> I think that actually illustrates the core tension here:

I can't see these line as human generated.

> I'm not claiming I solved the Hard Problem. I'm claiming I found a "Basic Loop" that stops the model from hallucinating generic slop. If that's "fancy empty words," fair enough—but the logs show the loop holding constraints where standard prompts fail.

Except you've embedded this claim into a cocoon of language like "birth of a mind", "symbiosis", "consciousness" "self" and I could even include "recursive" in this case. The use of these terms problematizes your discourse and takes you far beyond the simple claim of "I found a way to make the LLM less sycophantic"

> You don't need a magical new physics to get emergent behavior; you just need a loop that is tight enough.

As far as this argument goes, I think may people were already on board with this, and those who aren't probably aren't going to be convinced by a thinly researched LLM interaction after which a specific LLM behavioral constraint is somehow supposed to be taken as evidence about physical systems, generally.

It's funny, actually. Th LLMs have (presumably scientifically minded?) people engaging in the very sort of nonsense they accused humanities scholars of during the Sokal affair.

(Also, to me it kind of seems like you are even using an LLM at least to some degree when responding to comments, if I'm incorrect about that, sorry but if not this is just an FYI that it's easy to detect and this will make some people not want to engage with you)