High-level debates about analogicalarguments in mathematics, physics, philosophy, and law require reasoning that bears little resemblance to the computational processes of ACME or Copycat.
Arguments that rely upon extra (sometimes tacit) premises drawn from background knowledge to convert inference into a deductively valid argument without making the source domain irrelevant.
Orderly structures emerge out of random low-level processes and the program produces plausible solutions. Copycat thus shows that analogy-making can be modeled as a process akin to perception, even if the program employs mechanisms distinct from those in human perception. The multiconstraint theory and Copycat share the idea that analogical cognition involves cognitive processes that operate below the level of abstract reasoning. Both computational models—to the extent that they are capable of