zlacker

GP argument seems to be about "thinking" when restricted to knowledge through language, and "possible" is not the same as "likely" or "unlikely" — you are not really disagreeing, since either means "possible".

>>necove+(OP)
GP said plausible, which does mean likely. It's possible that there's a teapot in orbit around Jupiter, but it's not plausible. And GP is specifically saying that by studying human language output, you could plausibly learn about the world that have birth to the internal models that language is used to exteriorize.

>>tsimio+O1
If we are really nitpicking, they said it's plausible you could build an abstract representation of the world by studying language-based data, but that it's possible it could be made to effectively reason too.

Anyway, it seems to me we are generally all in agreement (in this thread, at least), but are now being really picky about... language :)