One thing I will just throw a bone on is this one:
> what if cooperation is a useful corollary for consciousness/higher level reasoning via internal linguistic structures?
Yes! Interesting! But what is cooperation? Is it mating? Are cats cooperating by mating and then parting ways? Are wolves (yes they are I think) cooperating? Different vocalizations from different animals mean different things and animals understand that. Is there a categorical difference between those patterns and the larger (although I don't know if this applies to the range of sounds) complexity of human language?
Bonus question, how does this factor in to someone who is more well-read than someone else, or maybe knows more languages? If Chomsky or others were to suggest there's no difference and you just hit a threshold by being a human with language, it still seems a little anthropocentric to me. I'm guessing that (and it's probably a taboo subject) there is differences in consciousness between humans as well - i.e. some people are more conscious than other people. It's not binary.
7 minutes: The Concept of a Person https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0XdIT_Cn4E
85 minutes: Grammar, Mind and Body - A Personal View https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMQS3klG3N0
Especially relevant if you read that article yesterday "disproving" Chomsky by noting that ChatGPT exists, and wanted to consider what his rebuttal might be.
TL;DR:
He would definitely agree He would definitely disagree, as I understand your sentiment; settling on a definition for the concept you're interested in is as impossible as settling on a definition for "meaning", "love", or "justice". Alternative hypothesis discussed in the 85min talk: what if cooperation is a useful corollary for consciousness/higher level reasoning via internal linguistic structures? He would whole-heartedly agree, in the cosmic sense, and whole-heartedly disagree in the sense of our relation to animals.