My point is that we know very little about the sort of "thought" that we are capable of either. I agree that LLMs cannot do what we typical refer to as "thought", but I thnk it is possible that we do a LOT less of that than we think when we are "thinking" (or more precisely, having the experience of thinking).

▲

viccis 7 hours ago | parent [-]

How does this worldview reconcile the fact that thought demonstrably exists independent of either language or vision/audio sense?

▲

PaulDavisThe1st 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't see a need to reconcile them.

▲

viccis 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Which is why it's incoherent!

	▲	PaulDavisThe1st 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not clear that it has to be coherent at this point in the history of our understanding of cognition. We barely know what we're even talking about most of the time ...