eh, it's more finding mismatches Input streams in and is
   compared to expectations. If expectations are in the range of
   acceptable, nothing changes or is noticed. It's only when the
   pattern is novel and everything else is ruled out, whatever is
   left over is used to generate new patterns. == I can describe
   the process without utilizing a word of logic and instead
   describe it via analogies and metaphors. Or I can describe the
   process computationally. I can say, "and thus, the process is:
   METAPHOR!" or I can say, "and thus, the process is
   MATHEMATICAL!" or I can say, "and thus, the process is...[
   insert something else ]". Can you see where I'm getting at? ==
   Just give 'em a documentary and their conspiracy flags rise up.
   It's easy to herd people with a documentary produced in such a
   way to force you to an 'irrefutable conclusion". Logic lovers.
   Easily manipulated. == All one has to do is put forth evidence
   after evidence in a chain of logic, each bit of evidence hard to
   refute by itself, chain it together properly and you've got it.
   No gullibility required. All it required is someone who thinks
   in a "thought experiment" way. They're wrapped up in a
   closed-world scenario and don't see anything outside of that
   box. I didn't take film classes at Hampshire College (same place
   Ken Burns came from) but they were BIG on the how-tos on
   producing documentaries and my friends who took the classes
   would tell me that people who are intelligent are the easiest to
   manipulate. They'd explain how they use the non-word things to
   do it: the music, the mood, the lighting, the way of talking,
   how the clips are put together, etc. == You can call it a
   fallacy if you like, Peter. To me, it's an observation of
   personalities. I've met thousands of people online of all
   different types of personalities and I can see how each type of
   person could be manipulated. I know my own weaknesses as well
   and guard against them. Nothing to do with fallacies but if you
   wish to think it those terms and consider it an adequate
   rejection of my idea, you can. But, you're throwing out valuable
   information in the process. == You're avoiding it. Is all logic
   discernible? Let's say logic is the foundation of all things.
   It's the Universe. It's the basis of everything and all,
   everywhere from all the past to the future, forevermore Amen. Is
   all logic discernible? == It also has religious undertones to
   it. I can replace the word Logic with the word God and the
   sentence still works. That's an issue. == It's a SYSTEM with
   internal consistency upon which other systems can be built. It's
   PRAGMATIC and useful, but is it everything? That's giving it a
   god-status. == Critical thinking - it's a system built by humans
   that is very useful for many things. Is it a more practical god
   than the one used by religions? Sure. But I'd rather see it
   remain a TOOL and not given a god-like status. == It's useful
   for what it's useful for. It's also used to produce incorrect
   knowledge. It's also used for manipulation of people. It's also
   used as a weapon. It's a tool. It's not magic. == You're talking
   more along the lines of etiquette. "This is the proper use of
   the logic you have". Its table manners. Wipe your nose after you
   blow. == Yes, where to place the knife and fork alongside the
   plate so the society ladies won't talk about us when they leave.
   It's etiquette. Sam Harris is Miss Manners of Logic. == *I* find
   analogy and metaphor far more persuasive in rhetoric than logic
   ==