And this is why I think gibson1 is wrong: we can argue about which projections or systems of logic should be used, concepts are still "calculations".

Here is why I think Gibson could in principle still be right (without necessarily summoning religious feelings)

[if we disregard that he said "concepts are key" -- though we can be yet more charitable and assume that he doesn't accept (median) human-level intelligence as the final boss]

  Para-doxxing ">" Under-standing

(I haven't thought this through, just vibe-calculating, as it were, having pondered the necessity of concrete particulars for a split-second)

(More on that "sophistiKated" aspect of "projeKtion": turns out not to be as idiosynKratic as I'd presumed, but I traded bandwidth for immediacy here, so I'll let GP explain why that's interesting, if he indeed finds it is :)

Wolfram (selfstyled heir to Leibniz/Galois) seems to be serving himself a fronthanded compliment:

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/12/combinators-a-ce...

>What I called a “projection” then is what we’d call a function now; a “filter” is what we’d now call an argument )