How Come This Was Not Discussed Yet

Information Technologies has had it easy and comfortable; Natural Information Technologies is a complicated and demanding business. How nice would it be, if all sentences were true, everything could be seen as more of one unitary unit, only the result was important, the nuances uninteresting, one could discard differences without any consequences, there were an infinite number of equally valid logical statements: This is the world society has built up, interculturally, to be able to deal with problems Nature has confronted us with. The simplifications are partly for neurological reasons, like the overriding importance of the similarity property among mental concepts; and the determined focus on the contents of the foreground with deliberate disregard to the background, the ungrammatical something enveloping the realm of the rational. The endorphin boost caused by having understood something is visible on young children who enjoy learning. Having a codified catechism of what is reasonable and what is to be understood adds a social component to the self-concept: one belongs to the selected few, the elite, if one has understood something that is universally defined as important to understand. These factors contribute greatly to the stability of a world view; one encounters the continuity/stability in the form of resistance if one suggests a change to the habitual ways of seeing the world.

The history of rational thinking begins with correctly deciding, which of two alternative stimuli of appetence is of more utility: discerning, recognizing differences is a process that happens in the moment, the intelligence needs no memory to evaluate the sensory input. Memory comes in, when after recognizing that b is bigger than a, the animal remembers whether a movement to or from b used to be more useful. Abstracting from most of the properties of a and b and describing them by means of multiples of a standard unit is a product of intelligence which beasts of pray that hunt in groups probably master. The visualizing ability of the brain encounters its natural limits usually near a dozen objects. Only thanks to the technology of the last decades have we the chance to introduce something basically new to concepts of logic. It is impossible for humans to investigate the patterns observable during reordering a set from one into a different order by using his fingers and his brain; methods of paper and pencil fail. Alone, to raise the topics one needs a computer to be able to present a possible way of consolidating the differences between Information Technology and Natural Information Technology. The task is roughly comparable to discussing the individual paths of each bird or fish in a swarm that exercises its maneuvers. In historic perspective, there was simply no way of formulating the subject of the present essay in previous generations, as they lacked the accounting power of computers.

Natural Information Technology includes that what Wittgenstein has contrasted the subject of his Treatise to, namely that what is not the case. We propose a concept of the world, in which some logical sentences are sometimes true, in dependence of the spectator’s decision, which aspect of the world is relevant for him in this moment. The world which we discuss in this essay consists of only two kinds of entities and each kind can have only 16 variants. By tradition, we have become used to reading the usual order of the set under the aspect of the two summands being interchangeable (‘commutative’) and their sum being the important aspect. We re-introduce the differences we were instructed to ignore at our first schooling in rational thinking, at Elementary School.