Turning your argument around, you actually seem to be saying that since a simple architecture is enough to convincingly simulate persons, perhaps personhood is much less complicated than is usually believed. For instance, people might consist of heaps of small/simple personas, and when we simulate someone we are actually simulating a persona relevant to the application we have in mind, such as someone's often-used mannerisms, or their stance on a particular question that we are thinking about. Is this in accord with your thoughts?
Turning your argument around, you actually seem to be saying that since a simple architecture is enough to convincingly simulate persons, perhaps personhood is much less complicated than is usually believed. For instance, people might consist of heaps of small/simple personas, and when we simulate someone we are actually simulating a persona relevant to the application we have in mind, such as someone's often-used mannerisms, or their stance on a particular question that we are thinking about. Is this in accord with your thoughts?