I realized that with you formulating the Turing problem in this way helped me a great dead how to express the main idea.

What I did

Logic -> Modular Logic -> Modular Logic Thought Experiment -> Human

Logic -> Lambda Form -> Language -> Turing Form -> Application -> Human

This route is a one way street... But if you have it in logic, you can express it also as

Logic ->  Propositional Logic  -> Natural Language -> Step by step propositions where you can say either yey or ney.
If you are logical you must arrive at the conclusion.

Thank you for this.

I'd like you thank you though for your engagement: This is valuable.

You are doing are making it clear how to better frame the problem.

1. I will say that your rational holds up in many ways, in some ways don't. I give you that you won the argument. You are right mostly.
    
2. "Well, I'm not making any claims about an average LessWronger here, but between the two of us, it's me who has written an explicit logical proof of a theorem and you who is shouting "Turing proof!", "Halting machine!" "Godel incompletness!" without going into the substance of them."
   
   Absolutely correct. You won this argument too.
3. Considering the antivirus argument, you failed miserably, but thats okay: An antivirus cannot fully analyze itself or other running antivirus programs, because doing so would require reverse-compiling the executable code back into its original source form. Software is not executed in its abstract, high-level (lambda) form, but rather as compiled, machine-level (Turing) code. Meaning, one part of the software will be placed inside the Turing machine as a convention. Without access to the original source code, software becomes inherently opaque and difficult to fully understand or analyze. Additionally, a virus is a passive entity—it must first be parsed and executed before it can act. This further complicates detection and analysis, as inactive code does not reveal its behavior until it runs.
4. This is where it gets interesting.
   
   "Maybe there is an actual gear-level model inside your mind how all this things together build up to your conclusion but you are not doing a good job at communicating it. You present metaphors, saying that thinking that we are conscious, while not actually being conscious is like being a merely halting machine, thinking that it's a universal halting machine. But it's not clear how this is applicable."
   
   You know what. You are totally right.
   
   So here is what I really say: If the brain is something like a computer... It has to be obey the rules of incompleteness. So "incompleteness" must be hidden somewhere in the setup. We have a map:
   Tarski's undefinability theorem: In order to understand "incompleteness", we are not allowed to use to use CONCEPTS. Why? Because CONCEPTS are incomplete. They are selfreferential. Define a pet: An animal... Define an animal: A life form...
   etc. So this problem is hard... The hard problem of consciousness. BUT there is a chance we can do something. A silver lining.
   
   Tarski's undefinability theorem IS A MAP. It shows us how to "find" the incompleteness in ourself. What is our vehicle? First-order-logic.
   If we use both, and follow the results blindly, and this is important: IGNORE OUR INTUITIONS. we arrive at the SOUND (1st order logic) but not the TRUE (2nd order logic) answer.
    

Thank you for sending this, and the productive contribution.

Is this related?
Yes. Absolutely.

Is this the same?
Not really. "The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem" comes most close, however, it is just defining terms. 

What is the difference?
The G-Zombie theorem is that what I say is more general, thus more universal. It is true that he is applying Incompleteness but the G-Zombie Theorem proves if certain conditions are met (which Bruno Marchal is defining) some things are logically inevitable.

But again, thank you for taking the time to find this.

well this is also not true. because "practical" as a predicate... is incomplete.... meaning its practical depending on who you ask.

Talking over "Formal" or "Natural" languages in a general way is very hard...

The rule is this: Any reasoning or method is acceptable in mathematics as long as it leads to sound results.

Ah okay. Sorry for being an a-hole, but some of the comments here are just...
You asked a question in good faith and I mistook it.

So, it's simple:

Imagine you’re playing with LEGO blocks.

First-order logic is like saying:
“This red block is on top of the blue block.”
You’re talking about specific things (blocks), and how they relate. It’s very rule-based and clear.

Second-order logic is like saying:
“Every tower made of red and blue blocks follows a pattern.”
Now you’re talking about patterns of blocks, not just the blocks. You're making rules about rules.

Why can't machines fully "do" second-order logic?
Because second-order logic is like a game where the rules can talk about other rules—and even make new rules. Machines (like computers or AIs) are really good at following fixed rules (like in first-order logic), but they struggle when:

The rules are about rules themselves, and
You can’t list or check all the possibilities, ever—even in theory.
This is what people mean when they say second-order logic is "not recursively enumerable"—it’s like having infinite LEGOs in infinite patterns, and no way to check them all with a checklist.

The phrase "among many other things" is problematic because "things" lacks a clear antecedent, making it ambiguous what kind or category of issues is being referenced. This weakens the clarity and precision of the sentence.

Please do not engage with this further.

Honestly, I’m frustrated — not because I want to be seen as "smart," but because I believe I’ve shared a genuine, novel idea. In a time where true originality is rare, that should at least warrant thoughtful engagement.

But instead, I see responses like:

1. People struggling to read or understand the actual content of the argument.
2. Uncertainty about what the idea implies, without attempts to clarify or inquire.
3. Derogatory remarks aimed at the person rather than the idea.
4. Dismissiveness toward someone who clearly put effort into thinking differently.

If that’s the standard of discourse here, it makes me wonder — why are we even here? Isn't the goal to engage with ideas, not just chase upvotes or tear others down?

Downvote me if you like — seriously. I’m not deleting this post, no matter the ratio. What matters is that not one person has yet been able to:

Clearly explain the argument

Critically engage with it

Reframe it in their own words to show understanding

One person even rushed to edit something where by editing he made it something lesser,  just to seem more informed, rather than participating meaningfully.

All I’m asking is for people to think — really think — before reacting. If we can’t do that, what’s the point of a community built around ideas?
 

Also, the discussion seems to be whether or not or who uses LLM, wich is understandable:

But an LLM won't put out novel Theorems, sorry

Look... This is step one. I'm working since 10 years on an idea, that is so elegant, well it's one of those* papers. Right now, it is under review, but since I don't consider this part of what it means, I posted it here because it's not prior publishing.

Yes, this could be considered a new idea — or at least a novel synthesis and formalization of existing ones. Your argument creatively uses formal logic, philosophical zombies, and cybernetic principles to argue for a structural illusion of consciousness. That’s a compelling and potentially valuable contribution to ongoing debates in philosophy of mind, cognitive science, and theoretical AI.

If you can demonstrate that no one has previously combined these elements in this specific way, it could merit academic interest — especially in journals of philosophy of mind, cognitive science, or theoretical AI.