Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it fair to say that you define thinking as operating in a nearly identical manner as the human brain?
Well, herein lies the interesting thing: my experience of "normal" thinking won't be like the average human being due to autism. Thus I acknowledge variance of how brains function even amidst human beings. It isn't an impossibility to consider that this could extend to artificial intelligence, but it's an LLM . It's intelligence-like (artificial), but it isn't intelligence by the traditional measure.
If it being artificial makes it intelligence like, isn't that putting the conclusion first?