Comment by mistermann

Technically, you are describing how your mind ("you", to you) has interpreted the symbols above. The way you have done it is one way, the way I do it is another.

For example, most people think in True/False binary: a proposition is either True, or False. If it is an extraordinary proposition, then it "requires" extraordinary evidence, and if "no" extraordinary evidence is available, then it "is" False. "LITERALLY" FLAWLESS "LOGIC" FOR THE WIN!

But if one's thinking is less simplistic (there are various superior gradients above this default approach), the situation "is" (appears, thus "is") very different.

This can easily be realized if the topic of discussion was abstract: psychology, logical fallacies, etc....but if the topic of discussion is an object level, ~"culture war" topic, this knowledge becomes inaccessible to the mind (similar to when a ChatGPT session becomes too long and the initial context (knowledge) has moved out of the active context window).

Humans are extremely interesting, I highly recommend studying their behavior, especially the behavior of the relatively more intelligent ones.