Just finished reading and really great post and intrigued.
From a neuroscience perspective, this resonates with how the human brain processes information. Unlike computers, the brain doesn’t rely solely on step-by-step logical procedures; it integrates intuition, emotion, and pattern recognition. Just as Turing showed there are truths unreachable by purely formal logic, the brain can “know” things without explicit reasoning, for example, when we have gut feelings or insights that can’t immediately be explained through linear logic.
Thank you! An extension of your point reminds me of Roger Penrose. He argues that the human mind performs non-computational processes‚ using Gödel's incompleteness theorems (a close cousin to Turing's work) to suggest that mathematicians can understand truths that are unprovable by any algorithm. Those "gut feelings" you mentioned might be a perfect example of this. Thanks for adding such a rich layer to the discussion!
Thank you for sharing more reading material … this topic is truly intriguing! I also appreciate your feedback on my perspective, since I wasn’t sure if I was thinking it through correctly. The comparison between humans and computers is definitely worth exploring further, especially from a philosophical perspective in today’s world.
‘Here we move from logical truths to another kind entirely — emotional, moral, and ethical truths — those that live in human hearts and shape our most important choices.’ Love that line. Feels a lot like life in the cockpit versus life at home. The flows and checklists keep me sharp in the jet, but at home it is the heart truths that actually keep me on course.
I love the way you write. It’s like I was being led through different doors and the moment you believe, yes, behind this door is the truth we were walking in completely different setup so far away from the truth. I wonder if your thoughts are running like this for you usually :) There is no such thing as universal truth, at least this is my understanding on the topic :)
Thank you so much for the comment, Diana! I'm so glad you liked the piece. I wish my thoughts normally ran like that! Honestly, it's a lot of work to pull coherent ideas out of the usual chaos in my head.
That's an interesting perspective on universal truth. I tend to think of it as a reminder that truth and logic are not identical things. There can be truths that our logical systems just can't reach.
Really engaging to read — thank you for trying to connect these different lines. But I think there’s a point that slipped away.
In Descartes, “I think, therefore I am” was never meant as “truth comes before logic.” What he actually did was place himself in the position of a separate point — the witness. From there, everything could be doubted — both sensations and reasoning. His move wasn’t to locate some pre-logical truth, but to practice a radical clearing-away. And what remains is not a conclusion, but the undeniable fact of doubting itself, witnessed from within.
This is where the triangle appears: self — world — witness. For Descartes, the world of things is always threefold. And that doesn’t reduce to either logic or feeling: both are frames that thinking is embedded into, not criteria of truth in themselves.
So when we say that “logic is grounded in feeling” or that “truth is broader than logic,” that may still be just a shift of filters. The deeper question is: from what position do we decide what counts as truth at all?
In this sense, Turing’s tragedy, Kant’s thing-in-itself, and even contemporary findings in neurobiology can be seen as parallel signs of the same dynamic: human beings don’t live “in truths,” but in systems of frames.
And perhaps the task of a thinker is not to choose one frame over another, but to notice the very gesture by which frames come into being. That is the work of the witness within us.
Thank you for engaging so thoughtfully with my post. You've raised a fantastic point that gets to the heart of the matter.
You're right to point out the nuance in Descartes' method. My goal wasn't to offer a full analysis of his position, but rather to borrow his powerful insight about the undeniability of experience. The very act of doubting, of establishing that "witnessing subject," is itself a truth claim about our inner world that stands firm even when formal logic is put into question. It's a powerful example of how truth can extend epistemologically beyond formal systems.
I completely agree that stepping back to see the "frames" we operate within is a crucial move. And you could certainly argue that the position of the "witness" is itself another kind of framework. But the deeper question I'm exploring is what these frameworks are ultimately made of. When you introspect on why a logical axiom feels "true," you don't arrive at another logical proof; you arrive at a feeling—a deep intuition of correctness.
My contention is that this emotional, intuitive ground is the substrate from which all our cognitive frames—including the very concept of a "frame" or a "witness"—are built. The act of witnessing isn't a disembodied, purely logical move; it's an act performed by a feeling mind. In that sense, you can't escape the emotional grounding simply by naming it as another frame, because it's the very ground in which all our frames take root.
I understand your thought, it's close to me. look in my article 3-1=3, I just showed how thought works and how insight works in general using the example of a simple question. By the way, it was this question and insight that revealed to me the field of meanings and Descartes' method. but maybe I intuitively used his method because I was educated at school? What do you think? Let's keep the dialogue going, I like your thoughts.Yes, you described the work of an internal witness as a function of frame retention. but I'm not talking about the function. I'm talking about what remains when the frame collapses and you can't think, feel, or hold your position. that which does not observe, but simply does not disappear. it does not fix the frame, but breaks it by the inability to match. Your witness is the structure. I have the remainder. You want to see, I want to know that it is impossible to see. hence the whole difference.
I love that line about the magic recipes book it’s really cool 👌
I had never thought about certain equasions as recipes that never end. Great visual for us non-mathy types. Enjoyed this piece!
Just finished reading and really great post and intrigued.
From a neuroscience perspective, this resonates with how the human brain processes information. Unlike computers, the brain doesn’t rely solely on step-by-step logical procedures; it integrates intuition, emotion, and pattern recognition. Just as Turing showed there are truths unreachable by purely formal logic, the brain can “know” things without explicit reasoning, for example, when we have gut feelings or insights that can’t immediately be explained through linear logic.
Thank you! An extension of your point reminds me of Roger Penrose. He argues that the human mind performs non-computational processes‚ using Gödel's incompleteness theorems (a close cousin to Turing's work) to suggest that mathematicians can understand truths that are unprovable by any algorithm. Those "gut feelings" you mentioned might be a perfect example of this. Thanks for adding such a rich layer to the discussion!
Thank you for sharing more reading material … this topic is truly intriguing! I also appreciate your feedback on my perspective, since I wasn’t sure if I was thinking it through correctly. The comparison between humans and computers is definitely worth exploring further, especially from a philosophical perspective in today’s world.
‘Here we move from logical truths to another kind entirely — emotional, moral, and ethical truths — those that live in human hearts and shape our most important choices.’ Love that line. Feels a lot like life in the cockpit versus life at home. The flows and checklists keep me sharp in the jet, but at home it is the heart truths that actually keep me on course.
Thank you for the reply! That's a great analogy—the "cockpit vs. home" contrast captures the idea well. I appreciate you sharing that connection.
I love the way you write. It’s like I was being led through different doors and the moment you believe, yes, behind this door is the truth we were walking in completely different setup so far away from the truth. I wonder if your thoughts are running like this for you usually :) There is no such thing as universal truth, at least this is my understanding on the topic :)
Thank you so much for the comment, Diana! I'm so glad you liked the piece. I wish my thoughts normally ran like that! Honestly, it's a lot of work to pull coherent ideas out of the usual chaos in my head.
That's an interesting perspective on universal truth. I tend to think of it as a reminder that truth and logic are not identical things. There can be truths that our logical systems just can't reach.
Really engaging to read — thank you for trying to connect these different lines. But I think there’s a point that slipped away.
In Descartes, “I think, therefore I am” was never meant as “truth comes before logic.” What he actually did was place himself in the position of a separate point — the witness. From there, everything could be doubted — both sensations and reasoning. His move wasn’t to locate some pre-logical truth, but to practice a radical clearing-away. And what remains is not a conclusion, but the undeniable fact of doubting itself, witnessed from within.
This is where the triangle appears: self — world — witness. For Descartes, the world of things is always threefold. And that doesn’t reduce to either logic or feeling: both are frames that thinking is embedded into, not criteria of truth in themselves.
So when we say that “logic is grounded in feeling” or that “truth is broader than logic,” that may still be just a shift of filters. The deeper question is: from what position do we decide what counts as truth at all?
In this sense, Turing’s tragedy, Kant’s thing-in-itself, and even contemporary findings in neurobiology can be seen as parallel signs of the same dynamic: human beings don’t live “in truths,” but in systems of frames.
And perhaps the task of a thinker is not to choose one frame over another, but to notice the very gesture by which frames come into being. That is the work of the witness within us.
Thank you for engaging so thoughtfully with my post. You've raised a fantastic point that gets to the heart of the matter.
You're right to point out the nuance in Descartes' method. My goal wasn't to offer a full analysis of his position, but rather to borrow his powerful insight about the undeniability of experience. The very act of doubting, of establishing that "witnessing subject," is itself a truth claim about our inner world that stands firm even when formal logic is put into question. It's a powerful example of how truth can extend epistemologically beyond formal systems.
I completely agree that stepping back to see the "frames" we operate within is a crucial move. And you could certainly argue that the position of the "witness" is itself another kind of framework. But the deeper question I'm exploring is what these frameworks are ultimately made of. When you introspect on why a logical axiom feels "true," you don't arrive at another logical proof; you arrive at a feeling—a deep intuition of correctness.
My contention is that this emotional, intuitive ground is the substrate from which all our cognitive frames—including the very concept of a "frame" or a "witness"—are built. The act of witnessing isn't a disembodied, purely logical move; it's an act performed by a feeling mind. In that sense, you can't escape the emotional grounding simply by naming it as another frame, because it's the very ground in which all our frames take root.
I understand your thought, it's close to me. look in my article 3-1=3, I just showed how thought works and how insight works in general using the example of a simple question. By the way, it was this question and insight that revealed to me the field of meanings and Descartes' method. but maybe I intuitively used his method because I was educated at school? What do you think? Let's keep the dialogue going, I like your thoughts.Yes, you described the work of an internal witness as a function of frame retention. but I'm not talking about the function. I'm talking about what remains when the frame collapses and you can't think, feel, or hold your position. that which does not observe, but simply does not disappear. it does not fix the frame, but breaks it by the inability to match. Your witness is the structure. I have the remainder. You want to see, I want to know that it is impossible to see. hence the whole difference.