You seem to attack scientism for being narrow, which I find valid. However, if I understand it correctly, you then proceed to offer solutions by referring to o

You seem to attack scientism for being narrow, which I find valid. However, if I understand it correctly, you then proceed to offer solutions by referring to other philosophical interpretations. I would say that those are also limited in a way. My original intention was to suggest that, as there are multiple possible interpretations, and no good way to decide on which is best, that we simply do not get to fully understand how thinking works. Science typically would shy away from the issue, by stating that it is an ill-defined problem. The Wittgenstein reference seems to do something similar. Recent advancements in LLMs might give science a new opportunity to make sense of it all. Time will tell.