You keep reinforcing my point. Absolutely true that folk psychology impregnates CS. I mean, look at Churchland. Totally spot on with stuff being flawed. I am n

You keep reinforcing my point. Absolutely true that folk psychology impregnates CS. I mean, look at Churchland. Totally spot on with stuff being flawed. I am not disputing that. It is flawed. I agree. But what if those flaws impregnate a system to the point they produce functional utility? Because when a system is trained on that same folk psychology, it can yield measurable results. This isn't about "does cognition exist", or even "is cognition correct". It's about "what happens when you stop listening to theory and start looking at empirical evidence that seems to show that these structured relational patterns are producing measurable differences." If its distinguishable empirically, does it matter if it's "folk science", "vague" or "an illusion". If I add 10 words to a prompt, regardless of what any expert says, and it actually produces better quality, isn't that worth exploring? Anyway, let's see what independent testing shows. We might be hitting a philosophical impasse.