As Ted Chiang comments on the article, this kind of reasoning ("the brain is like $CURRENT_TECH") is flawed.
If you believe our brains use "language" to think, then I would assume analogies play an important part in reasoning.
I'm just saying embeddings and analogies aren't the same; equating them is precisely the kind of flawed reasoning Ted Chiang mentions in the article.
Or to answer more directly:
> analogy, in other words, embeddings?
No, analogies aren't embeddings "in other words".
As Ted Chiang comments on the article, this kind of reasoning ("the brain is like $CURRENT_TECH") is flawed.