Ask A Genius 1431: Human Cognition, Paraconsistent Logic, and Knowledge Networks
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/19
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore how human cognition relies on flexible networks of connections rather than rigid logical structures. They discuss the connectome, astrocytes, paraconsistent logic, and quantum mechanics as models for understanding how the brain processes contradictions, adapts to conflicting information, and integrates multimodal knowledge to maintain coherent behavior.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you have any further thoughts and insights into the logic?
Rick Rosner: I think the prevailing idea is that the connectome — the complete map of neural connections in the brain — is central to consciousness, memory, and cognition in general. What you know is thought to be encoded in the pattern and strength of synaptic connections among your neurons.
More recently, research has shown that astrocytes — which are a type of glial cell that supports neurons — increasingly are understood to actively influence information processing and neural signaling, rather than only providing passive support. Regardless, the consensus is that knowledge and memory are stored in a dynamic network of cells and connections.
Because what we know is embodied in patterns of connections, all knowledge is constructed relative to other knowledge. It is not easy to conceive of it any other way. Every word you know, for example, gets its meaning through its associations with different words and concepts — this is true both in linguistics and in cognitive science. It is a network of associations. Likewise, what you accept as accurate is shaped by this network, and what you believe to be actual changes over time.
Something may be true in one context and not true in another. For example, did people in Italy see Mussolini as a tyrant when he first rose to power in 1922? Many did not at first; he was popular with large segments of the population, and it was only over time that widespread dissent and critical historical judgment grew, especially after World War II and his alliance with Nazi Germany. He remained in power for about twenty-one years. So, public perceptions evolve — your brain stores memories of previous contexts, and comparing them to current contexts helps you update your understanding.
In logic, take a basic example: in classical logic, if you assert ‘A and not A,’ you have a contradiction that causes an explosion — meaning that from a contradiction, any conclusion can be derived, making the system inconsistent. This is a core idea in Aristotelian and classical logic: contradictions are destructive to a consistent logical system.
However, in paraconsistent logic, contradictions do not necessarily cause an explosion. Paraconsistent logics allow for local inconsistencies without collapsing the entire system — this reflects how real-world reasoning often works when people hold contradictory beliefs yet still function coherently. This makes paraconsistent logic useful in modelling specific aspects of cognition, natural language, and legal reasoning and potentially in describing how the brain processes conflicting information.
There are at least two ways for information to be lost in such systems. First, the physical substrate may degrade; for example, in Alzheimer’s disease, neuronal death and synaptic loss lead to memory loss and cognitive decline. Second, information can be effectively lost when new evidence renders it unreliable or contradictory: an idea, once accepted, may be re-evaluated and discarded when contradictory facts emerge.
Jacobsen: This ties into what we discussed about subjectivities. A subjectivity — a conscious mind — holds a representation of the world, not always entirely linguistic but composed of multiple forms of knowledge, both implicit and explicit, symbolic and sub-symbolic.
Classical logic treats contradictions as fatal flaws. In contrast, a paraconsistent approach accepts local contradictions while still deriving meaningful and consistent conclusions at higher levels of abstraction. This may reflect how our brains process ambiguous or conflicting experiences while maintaining a functional understanding of the world.
This dynamic indicates that human cognition functions as a flexible, layered system. That is not necessarily equivalent to a logical structure in its standard function. Rather than requiring complete consistency at all times, the mind can accommodate tensions, gaps, and local inconsistencies. It integrates them into broader cognitive frameworks that support decision-making and interpretation. So, it can handle that contradiction. These buffering systems in the brain incorporate that capacity in some way.
Rosner: I always circle back to quantum mechanics, where a quantum description of the world includes different degrees of certainty depending on the local context you observe. Some things are highly pinned down, like the existence of macroscopic objects, because they consist of so many particles.
I mean, every gram of matter contains on the order of Avogadro’s number of atoms — about 6.022×10236.022×1023. So you have an enormous number of mostly stable, observable things. So, yes, the macro object exists, at least locally, because you can interact with it directly. People in another solar system would have no idea whether there is a single baseball here or a billion baseballs in our solar system — but within our local context, we know that certain things exist.
Jacobsen: There is another aspect related to systems of thought. Someone can say, ‘I am rational,’ and yet act in irrational ways. The explicit linguistic statement is inconsistent with the behavioural output of the rest of their knowledge system. They may act in ways that contradict what they verbally claim but are consistent with other implicit knowledge that is not necessarily linguistic. Paraconsistent logic, applied to the mind, can help model this: it can incorporate different forms of knowledge representation, with language being just one modality.
We are multimodal beings. Moreover, your brain constantly decides how much weight to give the information it holds, including how much to trust different modalities.
Rosner: We have talked a million times about how humans often ‘think with their dicks’ — putting significant weight on instinctive behaviours and strategies that can run counter to what would be in the individual’s best interest if survival or long-term well-being were the sole goals.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 