This is manic gibberish, with or without LLM assistance.

I do not believe I am manic at the time. If, hypothetically, I am, then the state has become so persistent that I am not capable of noticing it; this is the default state of my cognition.

I did not use LLM assistance to write this post.

Personally, I am very much aware of my thoughts, and have no difficulty in having thoughts about my thoughts.

I believe you.

I am talking about having thoughts (and meta-thoughts) that are 99.9% correct, not just 90% correct. How would you tell the difference, if you never have experienced it? How can you tell whether your self-awareness is the most correct it could possibly be?

Nevertheless, if the words I already wrote did not land for you, I don't expect these words to land for you either.

ETA: Or to be more charitable, it reads as a description of the inner world of its author. Try replacing "you" with "I" throughout.

I appreciate your feedback. It can be difficult for me to predict how my words will come across to other people who are not me. Upvoted.

[this comment I wrote feels bad in some ineffable way I can't explain; nevertheless it feels computationally correct to post it rather than to delete it or to try to optimize it further]

Hmm.

Yes.

Nevertheless, I stand by the way I phrased it. Perhaps I want to draw the reader's attention to the ways we aren't supposed to talk about feeling, as opposed to the ways that we are.

Perhaps, to me, these posts are examples of "we aren't supposed to talk about feelings". They talk about feelings. But they aren't supposed to talk about feelings.

I can perceive a resistance, a discomfort from the LW hivemind at bringing up "feelings". This doesn't feel like an "open and honest dialogue about our feelings". This has the energy of a "boil being burst", a "pressure being released", so that we can return to that safe numbness of not talking about feelings. 

We don't want to talk about feelings. We only talk about them when we have to.

just wanna note - modern vulcans in star trek strange new worlds are a much better emotional role model for one way to approach emotions, imo. they don't do the straw vulcan thing as much at all, and spock's growth as a character is actually really inspiring and makes him someone whose emotional approach to life I actually might want to somewhat adopt.

to put it briefly: they seem to have read the post on straw vulcans, to my intuition.

If you haven't seen ST:SNW, first ep is free, and I've been endorsing the first season specifically as "worth your time, no matter how soon the world gets wacky" - it's very well written and very solidly acted (though you can sometimes tell how much fun the actors are having) - in other words, the highest recommendation I can give: star trek is once again a story about how futures worth striving for should look, and is an incredibly fun and engaging one at that; if you're not the emotive type, it's also one that represents vulcans well. they have a vulcan dating subplot right out the gate and it's adorable and hilarious to see how much like rationalist dating it is!

I realize that the "tone" of this part of your comment is light and humorous. I will respond to it anyway, hopefully with the understanding that this response is not directed at you, and rather at the memetic structure that you (correctly) have pointed out to me.

You are playing around with groundless stereotypes. 

"Trying very hard not to be pattern-matched to a Straw Vulcan" does not make for correct emotional reasoning.

Activist sense (somewhat alike and unlike common sense) would say you have committed a microaggression. :)

Then it's a good thing that we are in a community that values truth over social niceness, isn't it?

Anyways, I appreciated your essay for a number of reasons but this paragraph in particular makes me feel very seen

I am very glad to hear it.

I wasn't familiar with the idea of cyborgism before. Found your comment [LW(p) · GW(p)] that explains the idea.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone being less than the hard superintelligence form of themselves is an illness; the ai safety question fundamentally is the question of how to cure it without making it worse

This, (as well as the rest of the comment) resonates with me. I feel seen.

The question you ask doesn't have an objectively correct answer. The entity you are interacting with doesn't have any more intelligence than the regular version of me, only more "meta-intelligence", if that idea makes sense.

There isn't actually a way to squeeze more computational power out of human brains (and bodies). There is only a way to use what we already have, better.

[the words I have written in response to your comment feel correct to me now, but I expect this to unravel on the scale of ~6 hours, as I update on and deeper process their implications]

I am confused.

It seems that you agree with me, but you are saying that you disagree with me.

Ok, I believe the crux of the disagreement is: the emotional reasoning that you have, is not shared by others in the LessWrong community. Or if it is shared, it is not talked about openly.

Why can't I post the direct output of my emotional reasoning and have it directly interact with your emotional reasoning? Why must we go through the bottleneck of acting and communicating like Straw Vulcans (or "Straw Vulcans who are pretending very hard to not look like Straw Vulcans"), if we recognize the value of our emotional reasoning? I do not believe we recognize the value of it, except in some small, limited ways.

Do our thoughts and emotions, on the inside, conform to the LW discourse norms? No? Than why are we pretending that they do?