The article's logic is a soup sandwich of two huge misunderstandings: First, "Theory of Mind" is something experienced at a high level directly. We do reason a

The article's logic is a soup sandwich of two huge misunderstandings: First, "Theory of Mind" is something experienced at a high level directly. We do reason about our own and other's actions, (both successfully and unsuccessfully of course). We still have much to learn about how this works and is implemented, but I don't think it is controversial that each of us do develop theories about our own minds and others and use that along with other information. Second, "Theory of Mind" does not mean "a scientific theory of the mind" it means that each of us develops internal theories of our own and other's minds. In one case "Theory" means something in our heads, in the other "theory" means a scientific body of knowledge. This seems to have confused the author greatly. So "Theory of Mind" has nothing to say about how neural circuits record information about locations in a maze and whether that recorded information can be considered "meaning" or not. "Of course you could argue that what Nobel Prize winning research shows about rats is irrelevant to humans." Wow! This really underlines that second confusion. Of course rat's brains can tell us something about <<theories of minds>>, but since we already know rat's don't model each other's internal actions with the detail we do, it would be problematic to view them as reliable sources for investigating the particular theory of human minds called "Theory of Mind". Sigh.