Human _can_ check themselves. They don't _always_ check themselves.
Motor _can_ move vehicle. They don't _always_ move vehicle.
LLM _cannot_ check themselves. They _never_ can. It is not that some don't, they just cannot, they are not a system complex enough to do so.
So, yes, it is a refutation. If you have something that _never_ can move a vehicle, this thing does not qualify as a motor, even if some motor, sometimes, don't move a vehicle.
And if your next argument is "yeah but I would argue you don't need to check yourself to be conscious or to understand things", then you just redefine the definition that is owned by your interlocutor. Your interlocutor is saying that this is a criteria they are expecting. Good for you if you are not expecting this criteria. But the problem is that the answer is not "this criteria is not expected", the answer is "I change the criteria from 'being capable to in some circumstances' into 'does always do it in any circumstances'".
All modern agentic harnesses can do this. Nobody uses raw LLM for anything remotely complex. There's always some external system in place. That system is part of the "thought process".
Adjacency doesn't matter here, only what the result of the system of pieces is.
It means having self-control on their action and being aware of them. If you ask a system, it will respond, it cannot choose to not respond (even if the response if "I don't want to response", it still "run", still do the work). If you don't ask a system, it will not respond.
Adjacency is the point of the thread here. Saying "you say X is important to decide if the thing is intelligent/understanding/conscious, so let me just change X in the middle of the discussion and say that X does not matter".
That is exactly my first comment in this thread: I don't care if AI think or whatever, my reaction was about these "counter-arguments" that totally miss the point and make the person who push them ridiculous. If you want to have a counter-argument, you first need to understand the interlocutor, not just spew whatever rebuttal you constructed that answer something unrelated to what the interlocutor brought to the conversation.
I'm not sure I understand. How do you do it?
In my thought process, I quite literally stop myself, and say "ok, think about what you just said" to check myself. I literally initiate that loop. If I don't, then I'm not using my own mental agency, and just using my firm coded priors.
I will say that I do seem to have a stop, what you said is wrong logic check voice that pops up without me initiating it. But, it's unreliable, and not too much different than all the content monitoring system used for the streaming clients, that will terminate with "content violation" immediately after the "incorrect" words are sent. I don't think integration is important, just the behavior of the overall system.