nikendo says:
> It makes me think of consciousness like training AI neural networks. Consciousness is akin to training a neural net by testing the result and triggering the reward function accordingly, whereas the subconscious is when you don't bother checking the result, you just "execute" the neural net from the control signal and take whatever result.
nikendo goes on to admit that the analogy might break down, but then reasserts that it works as a simplification (even as a simplification it is only speculation):
> I'm sure the analogy breaks down quite heavily, but it works pretty well as a simplification:
laserdinosaur says:
> So here's my takeaway from the article: concious thought is the evolutionary advantage of being able to modify our own subconscious thoughts.
Both of these are highly-rated comments on this article, currently more highly-rated than my comment which you're responding to.
To take this one step further, there was an Ask HN thread a few weeks back where many people on Hacker News said that they valued the comments on Hacker News better than the articles, and often didn't even read the articles. Maybe you can argue that nikendo and laserdinosaur just forgot to qualify their statements as speculation and don't actually believe what they said. But how is an HN reader who only reads the comments to know that this is the case? Reading those comments they could only conclude that bicameralism is an accepted scientific theory.