YES WE CAN MAKE LLMS REASON. WE ALREADY DO. Yes we can make LLMs reason – despit

YES WE CAN MAKE LLMS REASON. WE ALREADY DO.

Yes we can make LLMs reason – despite the recent paper by Apple. However, if human reason would require pencil and paper or the equivalent ‘state’ preservation; Or if human reason would require compartmentalization (Episodic memory), then like humans, LLMs must hand over reasoning (set manipulation) to proceduralism (supplied say by a programming language).

At NLI we solve the reasoning problem in LLMs (only chatgpt appears capable) by producing ‘continuous recursive disambiguation by operationalization (empiricism) and serialization (measurements) into first principles (causality), and reconstruction of first principles (constructive logic) by the ternary logic of evolutionary computation’ (the logic of existence at all scales).’

This methodology generates the Closure in ordinary (operational) language possible in mathematics and programming languages. With Closure, Intermediate Solution Recording, and Recursion, we produce reasoning by the same method that human brains do, albeit more abstractly than the hierarchy of human memory.

Even still, at times, we must use ‘paper and pencil’ (*.md documents) to maintain incremental conclusions for later synthesis to prevent ‘fog and drift’ natural to LLMs in the absence of episodic memory (state memory) as a native feature.

And there is a difference between a puzzle (designed to overload human reason) and a problem ( observed and extant in the world given the distribution of the quality of knowledge and information.)

Note in the very simple example below, the LLM does not engage in sycophancy, glossing, framing, or special pleading.

“Causal Analysis” is a system prompt cue.
——
[Causal Analysis]
Assertion: “Equality is a human right.”

1. Operational Restatement

“Every individual is entitled to identical treatment, status, or outcome under law and institutions, independent of demonstrated interests, ability, behavior, or contribution.”

2. First Principles

Scarcity: All human interaction exists within the constraint of finite resources.
Variation: Human beings differ biologically, cognitively, behaviorally, and in productivity.
Reciprocity: Cooperation requires reciprocal exchange of demonstrated interests and contributions.
Sovereignty: Individuals can only claim rights they can reciprocally insure without imposing upon others.
Computation: Institutions are systems for allocating costs and benefits under constraint; they must be computable and decidable.

3. Causal Chain

Humans are unequally endowed by nature (biological, cognitive, behavioral differences).
Social institutions must allocate limited resources and adjudicate disputes over them.
Claiming a “right to equality” implies forcibly neutralizing natural variation in outcome or opportunity.
Neutralization requires coercive redistribution (of resources, status, authority, etc.).
Redistribution imposes costs on those from whom value is extracted—without reciprocal consent.
Therefore, “equality as a right” violates the law of reciprocity, and undermines the computability of social institutions by introducing undecidable preferences (sentimental discretion).

4. Tests Applied

Operationality: Fails — “equality” is undefined without specifying equality of what (outcome, opportunity, legal standing, etc.).
Testifiability: Fails — The claim cannot be expressed in fully testified, actionable, falsifiable terms.
Reciprocity: Fails — Imposes costs without reciprocal compensation or consent.
Decidability: Fails — Discretion is required to resolve claims of “equality,” making consistent legal or institutional computation impossible.

5. Conclusion

The assertion “Equality is a human right” fails all tests.
It is:
Irrational — Violates known first principles of human variation and evolutionary cooperation.
Irreciprocal — Demands unearned transfers under coercion.
Undecidable — Cannot be resolved without arbitrary judgment.
Sentimental — Originates from moral intuition rather than testable empirical constraint.

It constitutes justificationism in moral language, not a decidable proposition.

The proper restatement under Natural Law would be:

“Only those rights that can be reciprocally insured by all individuals without imposing costs on others can be institutionalized. Equality, as universally asserted, fails this criterion.”