>>512286709
>"Defend myself" against a broken biological LLM lacking basic reading comprehension?
No, defend yourself against this:

In your OP, you said:
> people who do (have an inner monologue) literally cannot fathom self-awareness or nontrivial abstract thought without words.
"cannot fathom nontrivial abstract thought without words" - that's your claim. "Can't think about nontrivial things without the words of the monologue" - that's your claim.

And then I said, "OP's hypothesis is that people with an inner monologue can ONLY think using the monologue." <--- this is an accurate summation of your claim. I challenge you to present an argument (not another claim) explaining why it's not.

You are not smart enough to engage with this. Maybe an inner monologue would help