[cmccand1]

Human brains depend on neurons and "neuronal arithmetic". In fact, their statements are merely "neuronal arithmetic" that gets converted to speech or writing that get imbued with semantic meaning when interpreted by another brain. And yet, we have no problem attributing dishonesty or knowledge to other humans.

[measurablefunc]

Please provide references for formal & programmable specifications of "neuronal arithmetic". I know where I can easily find specifications & implementations of boolean algebra but I haven't seen anything of the sort for what you're referencing. Remember, if you are going to tell me my argument is analogous to reductionism of neurons to chemical & atomic dynamics then you better back it up w/ actual formal specifications of the relevant reductions.

[cmccand1]

Well, then you didn't look very hard. Where do you think we got the idea for artificial neurons from?

[measurablefunc]

You can just admit you don't have any references & you do not actually know how neurons work & what type of computation, if any, they actually implement.

[cmccand1]

I think the problem with your line of reasoning is a category error, not a mistake about arithmetic.

I agree that every step of an LLM’s operation reduces to Boolean logic and arithmetic. That description is correct. Where I disagree is the inference that, because the implementation is purely arithmetic, higher-level concepts like representation, semantics, knowledge, or even lying are therefore meaningless or false.

That inference collapses levels of explanation. Semantics and knowledge are not properties of logic gates, so it is a category error to deny them because they are absent at that level. They are higher-level, functional properties implemented by the arithmetic, not competitors to it. Saying “it’s just numbers” no more eliminates semantics than saying something like “it’s just molecules” eliminates biology.

So I don’t think the reduction itself is wrong. I think the mistake is treating a complete implementation-level account as if it exhausts all legitimate descriptions. That is the category error.

[measurablefunc]

I know you copied & pasted that from an LLM. If I had to guess I'd say it was from OpenAI. It's lazy & somewhat disrespectful. At the very least try to do a few rounds of back & forth so you can get a better response¹ by weeding out all the obvious rejoinders.

¹https://chatgpt.com/share/693cdacf-bcdc-8009-97b4-657a851a3c...