"... Moreover, intact linguistic abilities do not entail intact thinking abilities. Together, this evidence suggests that language is unlikely to be a critical substrate for any form of thought. "

LLMs BTFO and they arent even talking about AI

The quote from the neurobiologists at the end is really great too but its long so i wont copy it.

Really good read overall even if I dont really understand the math parts of it, sadly - also not sure about the whole will-transmission bit. Mostly in how its phrased in tenet 1 as opposed to how the neuroscience stuff vindicates "will-transmission". seems more like its vindicating language as purely communicative as opposed to "commands given to others" how its laid out in the tenet as stated. it feels like a jump.

I don't have all the context here, but the idea of language-as-command is verifiable through introspection as well — self-talk is a form of self-command, at least in my experience. Otherwise, self-talk isn't necessary for intuition in general. Eating something that I genuinely want to eat is a totally different inner experience from eating something that I'm middling on but I know I should definitely eat.

I like the will transmission model, it's very intuitive to me. Is the summary of Brouwer's critique of language in this paper expanded on in the source material in detail or is the summary sufficient?