> Fancy abstractions, but what are they abstracting away precisely? What are the roots they are trying to hide? Is the foundation of logic itself logical? Of c

> Fancy abstractions, but what are they abstracting away precisely? What are the roots they are trying to hide? Is the foundation of logic itself logical? Of course the foundations of logic are not logical themselves. Symbolic human thought grows from the natural capabilities of the brain, there are not universal axioms that can be extracted fully formed from the void. That's what rationalist philosophers for wrong (but then, they didn't have neuroscience and electric scanners). > > It's not a high bar to achieve. > I'm not sure I agree. It's not trivial at all to produce a system that can support what you call logic and formal processes We're talking at different levels. Building the concept of formal rational systems to order thoughts was a huge achievement of philosophers, first the Greeks and later XIX mathematicians like Bool and Russell and the computer builders. But what I say that's easy is building a new specific system on top of those foundations. It may be as simple as writing a regular expression, which defines a full (if limited) formal grammar. I agree that their power to represent and order the patterns of thought you find in life is more limited than what engineers believe; but when you find a domain of science where it can be applied, it's a very powerful tool to explore consequences and avoid or fix biases and misconceptions.