you are focusing on minor points of rhetoric instead of engaging with my broader point and the relevant LLM discussion. I am in fact assuming the null hypothesis in this argument.

first: the null hypothesis is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.

in this case, the phenomena whose relationship is in question are information processing theory and subjectivity.

consider Hitchen’s Razor, which states that ‘what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence’

even if your specific argument is different, the subject of the OP with which i presumed you more or less agree, argued that not only can information processing theory account for subjectivity, but that it does, and that LLM chatbots possess such subjectivity. This is asserted without proof, and according to hitchen’s razor I dismiss this pair of theses equally without proof.

as to your stance that information processing may or may not account for subjectivity, we can formulate this position as the positive claim that ‘information processing may account for subjectivity’ without losing any meaning. if nothing else, assume this is the position i am arguing against. i am not opposed to agnosticism on this matter.

i offer a syllogism:

A: if information processing can account for subjectivity, it would have done so by now - or, if it can account for subjectivity with only trivial modifications, we would have some indication of paths towards such an account.

B. we do not, in fact, have such an account within current information theory, or theoretical paths of investigation towards such an account.

c. therefore, information theory as it is today, or only trivially modified, does not account for subjectivity