While I agree we do a lot of our problem solving with symbolic languages (streams of images), even if we define "thought" as symbolic language processing, I believe many great experts in philosophy and law do internalize the relationships between concepts and operate on it on a more subconscious level to get there faster, going back to the symbolic language to validate their reasoning processes.
I wouldn't call those underlying processes "thinking", but it is a matter of definition.
This is also why those who just use LLMs to write those court submissions we've read about fail: there was no non-thinking reasoning happening, but just a stream of words coming out, and then you need to validate everything, which is hard, time-consuming and... boring.
I wouldn't call those underlying processes "thinking", but it is a matter of definition.
This is also why those who just use LLMs to write those court submissions we've read about fail: there was no non-thinking reasoning happening, but just a stream of words coming out, and then you need to validate everything, which is hard, time-consuming and... boring.