Really nice.

Regardless, even though I have a slight disagreement with Kurzweil about the evolution of the neocortex, I think his fundamental point that the human neocortex allows for a unique type of thought, is well-grounded in current evidence and theory. Perhaps it is best summed up by Kurzweil: “[Our neocortex allows us to] understand a structure composed of diverse elements arranged in a pattern, representing that arrangement with a symbol, and then using that symbol as an element in a yet more elaborate configuration.” All evidence suggests that this occurs in our vastly expanded mammalian neocortex. As a result of this structure we are capable of building ideas that are ever more complex.

I wonder if it might be more correct to say that we can utilize frameworks of increasing complexity by abstraction, while not actually conceptualizing more complex ideas. That is, by encompassing a pattern into a symbol, we can then operate on that pattern in a manner that is as only complex as operating on the symbol, rather than operating on the pattern in its entirety.

I think Douglas Hofstadter is really on to something with the connection between analogy and intelligence. AFAIK he now basically argues that intelligence more or less is operation by analogy. How else can you ratchet culture without biological change?