The paper linked here starts off by asking whether LLMs can “solve complex problems in ways that resemble human thinking.” Why would we try to answer that question without discussing how humans think?
The post you are replying to does not suggest that we should. If anything, it is suggesting the opposite - that we should be considering the full range of human abilities (or at least those that are effective in solving complex problems) when addressing the question you have quoted.
I agree with most of what viraptor has said in this thread, but not in this particular case.
Your previous reply was to:
> Why would we try to answer that question without discussing how humans think?
And by replying to that with
> Coz we simply don't understand how we understand, period.
Well, when we don't understand how we understand, that is exactly when we should be discussing how humans think. Or at least how we think we think. And the bat and a ball example relates to research about how we think we think.
So yeah, your reply definitely comes across as saying the first half, "So we shouldn't discuss it", while finishing it with "period" also suggests "or try to understand it at all".