We'll see now an extremely complex example. We have intentionally chosen a term which practically has no definition in GCL (the definitions is unclear) and has no associated direct data and facts from the external reality. The term chosen is 'alien' (ET).
To study within a positive science a term like ET seems impossible; we will see that this is not so. According to the logical schematic presented, we need a symbolic model (a positive science), which in our example is MDT itself.
Generation of a definition of the term ET in MDT means that we accept that ETs have a brain and more, their brain works based on the same principle as the human brain. This can be difficult to accept, but independent of the used SM (MDT or another), the situation is the same: SM generates the definition of ET, whatever SM is, and whatever the definition of ET in GCL might be. We'll try to explain ET in MDT.
Let's activate MDT with ET included. MDT considers that the basic functions of the brain are the construction of image models [I] and symbolic models [S].
Let's define a human brain [H] with the parameters I=1, S=1. It is very likely that ET will not have the same parameters. Let's suppose a model of ET with the parameters ET(1,10)(the same capacity to build image models as humans, but ten times capacity to build symbolic models). This is just a possible example. In a complete analysis we need to use a collection of values (I,S).
After having choosen a pair (I,S), we start operating MDT with ET included. We can ask a first question, e.g. how can the interaction between a human H(1,1) and an ET(1,10) look like? Which are the tendencies of the ET? Do they want to communicate, do they want to be friends or enemies, etc.
MDT can't answer these questions yet. We need to calibrate the model.
Calibration is done asking questions with known answers.
For instance, a dog might be associated to D(0.1,0) (10% of the capacity to operate image models compared to a human and zero capacity to operate symbolic models). We have the tendency to communicate with dogs and do not have an exagerated tendency to exterminate them. On the other hand, we have the tendency to exterminate mosquitoes which have an extremely low I value and S=0.
We can go on with calibration studying the interaction among humans. For instance, the Asiatic have clearly a higher I value than the Europeans, and the Europeans have higher S.
Once the system is somehow calibrated, extrapolation to given situations is possible. Based on prediction, we can evaluate which are the limits for I and S for a friendly or unfriendly interaction.