My current understanding of the argument is something like this:
The map reflects the territory. How does it reflect the territory? Because it can be interpreted by somebody/something as reflecting the territory/conveying information about the territory. But the act of interpretation itself instantiates a belief that refers to (reflects) the territory. So we’re back to square one unless the kind of reference relationship between a literal map (or more generally, an information-about-territory-carrier external to the mind) and the territory is importantly different than that between a belief and the territory. In that case, the belief-as-map analogy/way of thinking doesn’t make sense.
My current understanding of the argument is something like this:
The map reflects the territory. How does it reflect the territory? Because it can be interpreted by somebody/something as reflecting the territory/conveying information about the territory. But the act of interpretation itself instantiates a belief that refers to (reflects) the territory. So we’re back to square one unless the kind of reference relationship between a literal map (or more generally, an information-about-territory-carrier external to the mind) and the territory is importantly different than that between a belief and the territory. In that case, the belief-as-map analogy/way of thinking doesn’t make sense.