Oh yeah, there was also this line that prompted me to write a separate post in addition to the one sticking with the original subject:
Nickelplate wrote:The cognitive powers of logic, deduction, and inference are the greatest strengths of any mind considered to be "smart;" logic being chief among those as it dictates the other two and is in fact the "programming language" in which the universe is written.
I find this a fitting analogy, in a way. Programming languages are absolute in the way that they only accept commands they understand, and were made to understand. Anything not written in that language and the correct syntax is simply ignored, and will not show up in the actual program. When one wants to understand the way a program functions, it is indeed essential to know the language it was written in to get the details.
However, the language a program is written in has absolutely no connection to why
it was written. Assuming a part of the program was trying to make some sense of the why
, its best bet would be to look at the big picture, at the perceived patterns and results the program was exhibiting. When someone points at the moon, you don't look at the pointing finger, as the zen saying goes (bluntly put).
What I'm saying is maybe somewhat
in line with David Hume's classic: One cannot derive "ought" from "is"
I would only apply that to the interpretation of direct connections, however, and not necessarily even those, if one is perceptive enough.
PS. I also bumped into another line of his when looking for that previous one (which wasn't a direct quote). It's not elaborated in any way, but is again maybe somewhat
in line with how I view things:
David Hume wrote:We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm not a big fan of classic philosophy (or rather, philosophers).