Searching for points of interest and discovering patterns play a prominent role in the way we perceive the world. We derive general rules from particular instances. Is the construction of universals, stereotypes and models an inevitable consequence of this inductive thinking? What are the losses and gains when using stereotypes? Notwithstanding shrill political correctness, what must be kept in mind when resorting to stereotypes?

Why must we generalize? Could we think or speak or reason at all without universals?

Intelligence and plasticity of thinking are evolutionary adaptations to unpredictable and shifting environments. Does the evolution of the brain to deliver flexibility and intelligence have a certain inevitability? Will tantalizing evidence for a general theory of cognition be obtained by improved brain imaging techniques?

To what extent are the defined principles of logic, including the law of identity, the law of excluded middle and the law of contradiction, literally the laws of thought? Are essentials of propositional logic such as “and,” “or ” and “not” also the stuff of stimulation threshold and inhibition of binary firing synapses in the brain?

Our sense data and knowledge of ourselves and the world are at one remove from “things in themselves.” The apparent inextricability of perception and knowledge construction invite several nagging questions. Synthetic knowledge can be expressed in symbolic language as “knowing that.” Is “knowing that” analogous to “seeing as”? How do proprio-reception, the feeling of embodiment and actual performance skills inform “knowing how”? Is “knowing how” disjoint with “knowing that”?