Interestingly I have found that there is plenty of absurdity in the generalization process and absurdity stops this side of the interlocking processes.
Due to again: a number of related processes that have already produced the most accurate and most useful judgments.
Let things run their course and then consider. Lucky for all of us who are alive we have already made enough useful and accurate judgments to stay on course.
A phenomenal knowledge depends on no reduction to a previous level of learning.
For instance, if I suppose a logical basis to the acquisition of knowledge, then the sense of the meaning of that learning may not yet be codified in any language signal other then the awareness of action and reaction corralates to spatial recognition. The phenomenon by this elementary arrangement may not adapt to higher configuration, until the lower is codified into memory.
The instinctual behavior in dogs has not been codified into learning, because it is based on a level, which has no configured pre set code within the measurable codified cycles between generations presupposing some such awareness on a differing time lines.
But for those who have not lived long enough to run their course, and start up again prematurely, the course reset may result in insufficient basis of sound judgement, causing more uncertainty as the new test applications become more challenging and many formed objectively.
“Phenomenal thinking is all about reflecting on learned experience.”
That depends on the brain-mind problem of verifying the meaning and the content of ‘re-flect ’
Do images of prior experience denote a specific image within a context, or, a situation that establish the built up reservoir sum total of significance, or weather the point has been reached where there are as of yet no such signification that can connect all the "background noise’ attributed to such situation.
The key to this dilemma is the frequency of re-collecting those elements that present a continuous enrichment of qualities or qualia necessary for a ’ gestalt’ or a sufficient collection of such elements.
Dogs can do it to a level indicative of their comprehension, their reductive ability depends on a prior significant collection. The productive, construction of such elements in dogs , does contain mostly fixed assemblages from which it deconstructs to lower level generalized signals attributable to lesser contextual tie-ins, where phenomena is recollectable in complex channels, and this series created templates of sequential memory.
If collectible, then the re-cognized sequence of such templates do not break significantly enough to form a series of such that have enough of them to find meaning in, as a foundation, without which, the phenomenologically reduced idea can actually guerentees a meaningfully retained signifier.
Such totally regressed idea lacking proper foundational significance has been compared to a salad like assemblage of un re-cognized signals, with variable spatial attributes which may make little sense.
I almost sensed ‘thoughtless’ for ‘helpless’ as a signal of minimal re-cognition to incoming unfiltered data. ( the problem with Russell’s sense data significant here) and just a thought , if it does mean-make sense here)
Just another thought: I worry about reductionism sometimes - I try to reduce to the minimal that still has essential properties of the maximal being studied - the choice is in what is essential. Once we know the essential we can reassemble with the minimals to a size of our own choice that also contains the essential. Many molecules of water are still water just as one molecule of water is still water because this molecule is the essential.
This is partly why I say the formation is essential to the recognition. So does thought really require any language of words? Or is thought essential without language?
The formation is a construction and the recognition is a reconstruction. These are assemblages. Anyway, reductionism has not always worked effectively for us.
Related is: at what point does the essential emerge? I know in some cases this emergence only comes about as a part of a system of some different parts.
There is some recent paradigm-shifting…as usual…but as I have been saying more and more lately there is a lot we can explain not knowing the whole story.
There may be more to the story which could be acknowledged:
“Participation mystique, or mystical participation, refers to the instinctive human tie to symbolic fantasy emanations. This symbolic life precedes or accompanies all mental and intellectual differentiation.” Wiki
The consequences are enormous in formative ‘coincidences’., and their signification quite surprising.