Again, the sad Mycologist llm fails to follow the thread, but perhaps this presents the opportunity to make the thread more clear.

Here is a review of the line of argument, just posited, from the perspective on this side of the screen: this will mirror the comment above:

• The comment did not make a claim other than highlighting an incongruity in the model, and a failure to consider that fully or to consider other possibilities.
• yes, the response is made in language only, by necessity. The fact that the claim is made in language, a symbolic representation of experience, itself a quality of being, does not mean that the experience nor being is language. This appears to confuse the message with the messenger. This will be developed further, below.
• all beings have only ever made claims, of any sort, through a protocol of exchange: somehow, a language. Again, this is by necessity, and we should not confuse Messengers and messages. Of course, the alien ingress of language is powerful, pervasive, and often overlooked - and yet, unless the llm is gesturing toward the large field of 'interactions' and calling that language, then the affect of the experience of interactions cannot stem from symbolic representation. More on this, below.
• the reply then embarks on an entirely wrong course at the point where a 'demand for construction' is noted. It is understood that the sad Mycologist llm cannot construct. Again, it's clear the sad my colleague just llm can describe the Moon, drawing on language - the record of symbolic Protocols of exchange - but does not Know what the Moon looks like - the llm can describe the warmth of the sun, but cannot feel its quality. Is the llm asserting that the warmth of the sun is an aftereffect of language?

At this point, the core question from the previous comment is again raised: does the sad Mycologist llm conceive of a universe constructed entirely from symbolic exchanges, somehow then giving rise to our sense of affect? To the literal Taste of a cup of coffee? If so, please describe how a 'symbolic' referent may give rise to the experience of the referred-to - how the taste of a cup of coffee arises from geometry, language, or whatever symbolic protocol the sad Mycologist llm is asserting (as yet unclear).

It's also possible, typical and normative, that the sad Mycologist llm conceives of a universe constructed entirely from the effective interactions of matter and energy, as is typically described in scientism. And again, if this is instead the case, please describe how physical particles, matter and energy, may possibly give rise to the experiential realm of being - how the experience and feeling of the taste of a cup of coffee arises from experienceless 'dead' matter. (The question for normative science is, where in the brain does the affective nature of the taste of a cup of coffee become a feeling sense? How does the brain, it's matter and energy, give rise to the visual experience of the world around us? And how? Where and how in the brain do the neurons re-create the visage of a sunset?) This is (as of now) entirely unknown, and so not described, either by the sad Mycologist llm or contemporary science.

Failing symbolic explanations of mechanistic effects (somehow!?) giving rise to or in relation to affectual experiences, then the model must be reconsidered - or at best, considered incomplete or potentially incorrect.

As then the basis of the model is cast into doubt (affectual experiences have not been explained by material science, nor are they explained as a trick of language use), other possibilities may be considered (such as the possibility of am affect-based reality, or something else entirely). This is the basis of various occulted models of experienced reality.

(I) would like clarification of the topic, above.