there's nothing in the least bit thought provoking about it because it have any substance only claims (vague allusion to "memes" and undefined "Predictive Processing"). i wonder why that is? might it be because GP admits they aren't actually expert enough to substantiate any of the claims?
and that's my point. i see claims all the time from people not entitled to make claims. i see substance very rarely. why? because claims are easy.
Every human being is entitled to make claims. Some claims have more merit and some have less. You can choose to engage or not based on the merit of their argument.
God this is so tired. No one is questioning anyone's right to free speech. What I'm questioning is the value of that speech and the humility involved in making claims. That's it.