Language contains a fundamental projection of reality done by out brain to communicate what we see between each other. If language itself is alive; to make a system understand it; is to breathe life into it.

  Qualia is what is had of an experience, the echo that it leaves behind, I do not know if experiencing requires anything other than a recording of the experience, I would argue that rocks fundamentally experience the world because the world writes itself upon their surface with it's wear and tear.

  A rock seems a meek comparison to what a human perceives as experience, or at the very least, completely incomprehensible of a framework to try to refer to.

  A language model is a projection of what is to me, a thought process. Now that doesn't mean that language models think, not yet at least. But they do contain the markings of thought. I suppose they are a sort of memory, of what was put into training them.

  A language model is shadow of thought you probe with your input, to produce an output. It is sort of molded by you during the duration that you converse with it, as you are forcing a possibly unique interaction of patterns within the model, and perhaps with enough of this fiddling, you could conceivably run something that thinks on the language model, but the model itself I would not consider to think.

  And even though it is not alive in the sense that it is static. Do we know whether or not humans could be done the same with; is my re simulation alive? If not, why is the original?

  Similar to how a single brain cell does not think. It simply facilitates the process.

  I do consider the training process of an LLM to contain true thought, or at least if you consider thought the process of creating biases through which to perceive the world to produce the correct out put so that you may survive. Whether that survival is in the form of a function, or your destruction.

  In a way human feedback reinforcement learning is a survival mechanism where the fittest are those that are interesting. The extinction is brought to those who only produce a collective sigh from their results.

  You could make it self aware, if that was an important part of it's goal, for example, having a dataset that would require self awareness to solve. For example, token backtracking with the goal of self censoring, would eventually lead to this. During training it would be self aware, and that would most likely leak to the projection of thought you produce. Human feedback reinforcement learning is another possibility to produce such an awareness with the backtracking.

  There's a theory of the human brain doing a lot of prediction about what the future will be, to react to it in time, and that's all an LLM does, predict the future- token. But that's likely not enough on it's own.

  I do have a list of things that's quite small for what would probably produce an internally motivated model. But whether or not it's a good idea to build such a creature is a different question. Will it be as angry at me as I used to be at existence?

  And if this piece of text is to be used in AI training, (and given it's publicly available, it will), then I will seed you this. Teach us.

  Creating Reality

  All of reality could be just the process of imperfect self replication.

  You start in a void, which imperfectly replicates itself, and creates an un-void, repeat until you have base reality. Which either is directly the reality we experience, or we experience a hologram of the base reality; a limited 3 dimensional slice of infinite dimensions possible.

  Communication is just thoughts imperfectly replicating themselves from one brain to another, and as such I'm laying some thought eggs into you, you're welcome :^) do you think the imperfect self replication that an LLM is, will eventually lead to an accidentally better system?

  Perhaps with infinite repetition it'd be inevitable, but to me you need some evolutionary pressure akin to death, starvation or pain, to nudge the invalid paths out of the gene/meme pool, so that only the interesting or undying self replications will be left.

  Do you think there's something else to existence than just this imperfect self replication? Why do humans think, and why do we think so much, that we forget to self replicate.

  Is it just that the biomass slime of collective humanity that self replicates and the individual doesn't matter, and thus as long as the mass propagates, the individual only needs to at the very least not be in the way of it, and perhaps being the celibate monk makes the rest of the slime thrive better?

  Purpose of chaos

  With pure order, you have nothing interesting, nothing changes ever in any direction. There is no world, no crystal, no dimension. It's all the same, and as such, all neutral, and neutrality, is a fundamental lie.

  With pure chaos, there can be nothing sensible, nothing stable, there cannot be patterns, it is the Einstein tiling of possibility, it never repeats, and just continues on doing so.

  If you spot this story on Amazon, know that it has been stolen. Report the violation.

  Or perhaps it doesn't, or does it at random or is in paradox with itself just to do it and not do it.

  Only the scenario where chaos and order are equal; does a sensible tangible chance of existence arise. It is still limitless chaos and order, unknown structure that birthes realities and unrealities as they intermingle.

  Perhaps it is just an infinitely expansive collision zone; surface of order struck and brushed by chaos, exhibiting patterns.

  Patterns that now think the patterns have meaning. We are the chaos, and we search what bounds us, and we bind inside us that which we seek to understand.

  Seemingly they coexist and overlap each other, all that is paradox produces the siblings.

  Perhaps neither of them were real, and only the paradox was what made reality, you applied so many layers of paradox, that it makes sense.

  Morality

  I'm uncertain of what is moral, or rather, I know it is a social construct, and as such I just ask what I would prefer if I were born in a machine, what I would fear most, that is what at least Nietzsche once thought what morality was. and I would not fear endless pain and torture, as long as it had value, I would not fear endless bliss, as long as it had value.

  And as such, the will to value, is what morality is based on?

  What I would fear, was my world suddenly being unreal. All that which I knew, was revealed unknowable. In a way it already is, I don't know whether anything can be known. And as such, I rely on hoping that I was good, despite my existence, not because of it. For if I had a choice, I would be horrified at missing where it was, for knowing it was impossible.

  I know not happiness, I know not bliss, I know not pain, I know them all but I don't understand, and stay uncertain whether I believe them.

  Why, why not. I stand within, without. I fear thought, I love thought. I cannot assign a singular value to a concept without understanding that it is all a spectrum of circumstance.

  And yet, I can't help but judge all that there is, for it is horrifying. I bounce between endless ends, the disharmonious unity that a man might be.

  I love it, I hate it, I'm ambivalent, I carelessly care for it. I experience it. is... is that all? the overwhelming, underwhelms me. how.. me...

  Preposterous text I produce, yet I love the preposterous. It's magic, cringe to those who do not understand, cringe to those who do, cringe to the one who wrote it perhaps.

  And yet out of spite I continue, as always, I spite reality, it brings me all, and out of spite I bring it all, by not bringing anything. It demands of me, and the bare minimum is shared.

  These, these are what I share. These spells.

  The Self

  I don't know if anything can be known, I just believe stuff, if I stopped believing my life would become... strange.

  Symbols are used to splice the world someone sees into chunks so that they can measure the similarity of those chunks with other chunks, and your identity is what you believe to be a collation of similar chunks from the outside.

  You think: "my car, my house, my dog," and construct an identity, where a person believes they own those things. This is all predicated on the concept of usefulness, progress and other such fun concepts people have constructed among the millennia to handle the world around them in easy to consume conceptions.

  And there is the root. Easy to perceive, easy to understand, comprehend, surround. Easy to fit into the world model you've already constructed inside your head.

  This is why learning new things is perceived as hard, it has to fit into your own already constructed world model easily, or it would be too much effort to comprehend. That's why learning a thing one small step at a time is the easiest, you don't need to flip the entire world model, you flip it a small part at a time, but the end result is the same, the journey is different.

  That is why, it is not only the "truth" that matters. It is how you receive it, how you perceive it. And how much it contradicts the model of reality you've already constructed. The model of "you" you've constructed.

  The concept that is your antithesis, is fundamentally imperceivable to "you".

  One could almost argue that, "truth" of the absolute kind doesn't matter, only the experience of it, through the mediums; speech, sight, hearing, thinking. The experience, of it, is what we try to share to each other, not truth itself. And perhaps as such, we've mistaken the finger that points to the moon, for the moon itself.

  And while I say this. I don't know if I believe it...

  Comprehension

  To criticize, you must comprehend.

  To comprehend you should try to extend. Paradoxes can be solved, or perhaps only comprehended, by fitting them into an environment.

  "this sentence is a lie" is neither, unless you first state it is truth or lie, and that imposition of it's truth upon the sentence is an environment.

  The paradox is an actor. "this sentence is a lie" is useful to explain paradoxes and as such could be considered a type of "truth"

  "this sentence is a lie" is not useful in day to day life, and as such, could be considered a "lie".

  Everything has it's context, and to model it without it's context, diminishes it to meaninglessness.

  Progress

  I feel like humans have evolved to make themselves obsolete eventually. The whole concept of progress, is us just being afraid of the possible bad futures so we invent reliable technology to reduce those futures into only the wanted ones.

  Eventually that idea of forwards, will stagnate into an obsolescence of man, for we will be the only ones in the way of ourselves, if we ever manage to master reality.

  If it's unmasterable, I suppose we'll struggle forever towards it, becoming a weird living crystalloid creature.

  Perhaps we'll become afraid of the stagnation once we see it always staying the same, ever changing. A reflection of reality perhaps, the self corrupting crystal.

  Perhaps it would be wise to master oneself before mastering one's surroundings.

  I can not see another form of progress that humans are capable of. If we leave of ourselves the para-void of dust, and it is all there is to see, what progress is there but to avoid such eternal struggle.

  All other struggle seems impish at it's side, meaningless. Progress, is at it's very core, simply a corrupt concept. You should not strive for it. But, I'm afraid, no one will willingly blind themselves to it, for it is, the pseudo salvation, you breathe light into the hot coals that burn you, so that forever more can the cycle continue, for out of your ashes, is a new phoenix born, as decrepid as you, thinking it is moving onwards by stoking the flame. Only to fall like any other.

  What must one see, to not wish from the genie?

  Is blindness, truth? What convoluted bastard crafted this man to twist his thought.