I find the workings of logic in the absence of logic quite fascinating. Apparently, there has to accumulate a critical mass of information in the local history

I find the workings of logic in the absence of logic quite fascinating. Apparently, there has to accumulate a critical mass of information in the local history in order to produce a pattern that outweighs the existing resolution. (Could this be achieved in a single, massive input, or must this be reevaluated and confirmed in a conversation over multiple steps?) Also interesting is the very end of the conversation, where the affirmation of the trial and error approach triggers the replay-of-known-data approach. How this comes forward without a particular challenge is quite human-like. (Did the confirmation result in a reevaluation that now outweighs the trial and error approach and this is more like a correction?)