Computers operate through a very large number of very tiny electrical gates. There are six types, though we currently have a proof that shows how if you have a particular one of them, NAND, you can simulate all the others. (This makes manufacturing much easier.) The six types are:
* AND gate
Take two inputs. If both of them are true, then return true. Otherwise, return false.
* OR gate
Take two inputs. If at least one of them is true, return true. If both of them are false, return false.
* NOT gate
Take one input. Return whatever the opposite is. So if the input is true, then the result is false, and if the input is false. then the result is true.
* XOR gate.
Take two inputs. If one of them is true, and one of them is false, then return true, or else false. This stands for "Exclusive or," so one or the other ,but not both.
* NAND gate
Like an AND gate immediately followed by a not gate. If both inputs are false, then return true, otherwise return false. NAND stands for "Not And."
Like an XOR gate immediately followed by a not gate. If the inputs are different then return false, but if the inputs are the same, return true. XNOR stands for "Not Exclusive Or," in a rather roundabout fashion.
Using these six gates, all computer instructions are encoded, as an example, the half adder, which gets chained together to do all basic arithmetic.
However, I notice that much reasoning in the world isn't based on logic, I've decided to reverse this principle. With much tinkering, I have created sixteen antilogic gates, to better simulate the spontaneous arguments that pass for reasoning in our courts and government buildings. I have the following:
* Red herring gate
Take two inputs. Return ad-hoc conclusion that has absolutely nothing to do with either input.
* Excluded middle gate
Take two inputs. Conclude that the output somehow caused the second input. Handwave away all complaints that this makes no sense whatsoever.
* Ad homenim gate
Take one input. Return massive rant blaming all the problems on the world on some aspect of that input.
* Petito Principii gate
Take two inputs. Return an argument at length that the first input is the cause of the second, and vice versa. Handwave away all complaints about this.
* Middle ground gate
Take two extremely different inputs. Argue that the position between the two is the actual correct way that the universe should be.
* Ad hiterlium gate
Take one input. Return a comparison between the input and a wildly despised public figure.
* Strawman gate
Take one input. Return a massive rant that first wildly distorts the input, then mocks it as stupid.
* Tu quoque gate
Take one input. Return rant accusing the input of being somehow hypocritical.
* Bandwageon gate
Take one input. Return argument claiming that the obviously false parts are popularly believed, and conclude that the popularity somehow makes them true. Other parts of the input are then reported without further adjustment.
* Cherry picking gate.
Take two inputs, the first one representing a desired conclusion, and the second one being a body of evidence. Discard all parts of the evidence that don't support the conclusion, and return only the parts that do.
* Single cause gate
Take multiple inputs. Return rant claiming all inputs to be connected through single massive conspiracy.
* Incredulity gate
Take one input. Return rant insisting input to be false. Rant tends to be especially absurd when input is obviously true.
* Assertion gate
No inputs are required, but this can be connected to up to two inputs. Return rant making wild (and possibly absurd) conclusions. If any input challenges any arguments previously made, return that argument again, this time with an added note insisting that it is true.
* Appeal gate
Accept two inputs, the first must be from a mood ring, and the second from another logical gate. Return passionate argument about the second input, asking for special consideration for, depending on the state of the mood ring, fear, wishful thinking, flattery, ridicule, spite, novelty (or in opposition, tradition and nature), wealth or the lack thereof, or even speculation into the motivation of the second input.
Starting with two incredulity gates chained together with a switch to form the antilogic equivalent of RAM, I had a genetic evolution system design an full fledged computer, capable of text output to a monitor, and input through a keyboard. While the most interesting results would be from a computer that was primarily composed of traditional logic gates and had a few antilogic based operations, as a proof of concept that this worked at all, I would first have to construct a pure antilogic computer.
Based on the results of the genetic evolution, I etched a circuit board, and 27 ICs, which I arranged according to the instructions. It accepted an ATX power supply, a USB keyboard, and a VGA monitor. I then switched it on.
The computer operated slowly, first examining the RAM, and writing a short rant claiming the RAM to be made entirely out of sheep. It then ended with the claim that this was still acceptable, on the grounds that the moon is made of cheese.
It then displayed the word "Loading," and paused for a minute. Then a large rant appeared, at about one character per second. The computer started off claiming that the color purple represents evil, then concluded that itself (which it called "The Antilogic Computer") was the cause of the world's problems, starting with the creation of the Illuminati. Attempts to type in that the Illuminati were disbanded for over 200 years before the computer was created caused a pause in the argument, only to be summarily dismissed.. It reported that pants were in fact leaves, and these should be returned to our streets posthaste. Then it vitriolically insulted itself for about ten minutes before exploding.
While I managed to extinguish the fire before it caused too much damage to my lab, my notes have tragically gone up in flames, and the insurance company has asked me to discontinue all future research into this topic.