3,078
edits
Changes
→Refutation
For the sake of economic usage of memory storage we will assume the simplest inductions between SPs. Yet, in the coming phenomena we may notice that the induction does not describe well the relation between the SPs. We might find that although we have the induction "smell<sub>x</sub> always come with sound<sub>y</sub>", we might notice that in the coming observations sound<sub>y</sub> do not follow smell<sub>x</sub>. This will cause refutation of the induction, and we will have to try to create a new induction or forget the refuted induction. If we want to suggest a more complex induction we may look at our stored relations between SPs, and see that when smell<sub>x</sub> was not followed by sound<sub>y</sub>, a touch-feeling<sub>z</sub> did occur just before the appearance of smell<sub>x</sub>. Therefore we may suggest the following induction " smell<sub>x</sub> always come with sound<sub>y</sub> unless touch-feeling<sub>z</sub> occur just before smell<sub>x</sub>".
From the sets of stored memory about SPs we may suggest many different inductions that may describe the occurence of SPs, but yet again for the sake of simplicity, it will be better to use the simplest induction possible to describe all the maximum observable SPs.
This Process of suggesting induction, refutation and resuggesting a more complex induction, is a continued process of creating knowledge.