Mathematics, rationality, logic, "formal process". They are like talking about "threads", "file descriptors" and "inodes". Fancy abstractions, but what are they abstracting away precisely? What are the roots they are trying to hide? Is the foundation of logic itself logical?

Of course this degenerates into word-play quickly, but the problem itself isn't solved (or diminished) by word-play.

> It's not a high bar to achieve.

I'm not sure I agree. It's not trivial at all to produce a system that can support what you call logic and formal processes, both cognitively - you have to think it up in the first place and Turing and von Neumann and others were no slouches - and physically as the history of and continued development of computational circuitry shows. I think what you call rational or well-behaved systems are just mirages or shadows that pop into life once a specific pattern of fundamentally non-rational behaviours intersect just right.

I, of course, am unhindered by any actual knowledge or competency in this domain so I wouldn't read too much into what my unhinged subconscious is spewing forth.