Or is the real thinking sub-linguistic and “you” and those you talk to are the target audience of language? Sentences emerge from a pre-linguistic space we do not understand.
I do find it funny that this discussion thread has tried to represent language as a universal form of thought when it would be messy to encode the inner workings of a LLM (the weightings/relationships) themselves as natural language.
You could sort of represent the deterministic contents of an LLM by compiling all the algorithms and training data in some form, or maybe a visual mosaic of the weights and tokens, or what have you...but that still doesn't really explain the outcome when a model is presented with novel strings. The patterns are emergent properties that converge on familiar language--they're something deeper than the individual words that result.
