“How to make ChatGPT summarize some papers by W. Galus” might be a better header.

Dear Joachim,

Many years ago, we discussed here the difficult problem of consciousness. Back then, I already had a vision and argument as to how subjective, first-person phenomenal experiences are experienced. However, I could not present a convincing argument in even the longest posts, and counter this argument to the extensive and inquisitive posts of you, Larry Carlson

There, I present various aspects of our Motivated Emotional Mind (MEM) model, which I am convinced is superior to other popular models of the conscious mind. I have provoked this discussion because there are still articles whose authors claim that we do not know what consciousness is, that we know nothing about it, and that we will probably never be able to discover how it is created. How can one write and say such things if one does not make a thorough critique of our model?

There is only one excuse: when one does not know the MEM model. That is why your proposal to change the title seems to be inappropriate. My title has a promotional/marketing meaning. I am counting on it, it will arouse wider interest. On the other hand, harnessing the GPT chat to the comparative work of our theory, with other known theories, may make it easier to understand what all these theories are about, at a time when so-called scientists do not want to read a scientific paper.

I would be very honored if you would be willing to thoroughly criticize the theses of our model. You might also want to criticize the comparative argument of Chat GPT, or some other Chat AI you trust. That would be a double critique: of our perhaps not fully mature model, and the supposed intelligence of immature AI systems.

I think that would be of great interest to readers.

So I thank you in advance for that on their behalf and mine.

Dear Wiesław,

thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, I do not have the time anymore to lead extensive discussions on the net (or rather, I must choose very carefully and be extremely motivated to spend my time that way). Then again, I doubt I could say anything about consciousness that I haven’t already said back when I used to be more active on ResearchGate.

But just briefly:

I do not doubt that you might say something interesting or insightful about consciousness. I simply doubt you are making any progress regarding the Hard Problem (if there is such a thing as a “Hard Problem of Consciousness”).

You write that “there are still articles whose authors claim that we do not know what consciousness is, that we know nothing about it, and that we will probably never be able to discover how it is created”. Well, you might know answers to all three of these questions (which I would even suppose you do to some degree), but know nothing about how to address the Hard Problem.

It's a pity, Joachim, that you don't find time for your interests :-)

I'm a bit disappointed because it seems that there is no need to study these issues too deeply. It is enough to simply read or ask a more detailed question of the machine, or, as a last resort, to me.

But thanks anyway for responding to my post. Others have not taken an interest in this "fascinating" topic even in the slightest.

Dear Wieslaw,

I commend your efforts in this field, but my initial reaction when you first posted was "TL;DR".

In all honesty I think you need to consider how best to draw in the interest of the potential readers you hope to engage.

If you will allow me to offer a possibly helpful suggestion: Something short and punchy with some well-known references and an indication of how your ideas challenge those widely known views. Let one or at most two of your existing articles be linked to that article and then elaborate from those links for anyone interested to explore further.

As for where to post - I suggest you need to find an existing conversation to which you can contribute. I've been finding a lot of interesting material by PhD-level and higher on Medium.com, sometimes following an initial posting on a related journal. Perhaps you coujld offer an article there as a starter?

Like Joachim, I concur with his last reply to you.

Hoping this might be of some encouragement and assistance - Paul

Dear Paul G. Ellis,

Thank you for your answer.

I understand its content, but I cannot understand the attitude of some readers who spend dozens of hours on hundreds of short posts on issues that supposedly interest them, and are unable to find a dozen or so minutes to get a "scientific" answer from a source whose credibility we passionately test (I mean the GPT chat). Especially since they have the opportunity to delve into the sources if the initial answer interests them.

I understand Joachim and you perfectly well, because I also suffer from a permanent lack of time. I am interested in the collapse of the wave function and dark matter, but I do not have time to study these issues.

On the other hand, I am concerned about the superficiality of the youngest generations, in particular, who do not take advantage of the enormous possibilities created by the easy availability of knowledge.

Signum temporis.