@felix They've got quite different value semantics. In Lisp, you can mutate objects and other things that have hold of the object will see the mutations. In Tcl, values are non-mutable (unlike variables), which has some pretty deep ripple effects.

Also, Tcl's a lot less worried about linguistic purity. Embedding another language (SQL, C, Fortran, etc.) inside Tcl is considered good practice.

@Setok It's missing the "FLASHING EXTRA BRIGHT, to let the Aliens from Vega know where to land, my god I can see my skeleton projected on the walls in ash" mode.

Lucky.

@troed It's not so simple. Much projection of the future is LLM-style, pattern-matched against experience. But that produces conflicts, between memories and with what is sensed. The critical part is the "decide which to believe" circuits, centred on cortical pyramidal cells (which have the right behaviour in their dendritic trees).

I think that, in a recurrent loop (Hofstadter-style), induces the sense of self.

@troed Not claiming it was the point. The real point is that LLMs are a partial model, and one of the things that's missing is the "decide which conflicting thing to choose part". Currently that's bolted on from outside (the probabilistic model to choose the next word from the distribution) and that's an inferior technique.

I think that part's also crucial (in mammals at least) for developing a sense of self. No proof.