ALine

no not really, its more like comparing everything to being a system and then using that representation of nature to compare to other systems.

Can you use models to define rules to define new simulated actions?

Is there a direct correlation between concepts and problem-solving?

As the title says, are cognitive rules and concepts somehow related for referencing itself?

When viewing meta cognition you need to look at a cognition recursively viewing its cognition. Instead of doing it this way, one cognition can simply create a cognition, a definitive concept, and then have the first conceptual cognition relate to the second.

As the title reads can you rebuild a cognitive system using concepts alone?

No, I don't think so. In fact, I believe that I am removing a layer of complexity by starting by saying you are a machine. It removes the needed affirmations of a biological system with its uncertainties. By starting with the machine, one can argue that belief, want, and morality are add-ons rather than an initial set of causal states. It also makes it easier to analyze biological intelligence.

What makes you think that?

So, it defines a boundary for explanation and expression before you begin considering the need for a reason or expression. It begins your thoughts as being systems before you even consider them by bounding your reality depending on what you are observing. This is a backward step, a machine is a simple object and doesn't think, at least not in a way that we could understand; you may as well ask us to talk to an ant hill, bc the average ant colony has roughly the same number of neurons as that of a human. I wouldn't say so. Thinking in terms of a machine creates a basis of thought that employs basic rules which can be expressed as being different types of rules on top of logic. I do not know anything in philosophy dealing with "negative" values. And I think events and actions and interactions can be empirical as well.

It condenses common philosophy into a distinctive form. Instead of relying on logic, you have a basis for that logic, that being a system or a machine. So say, another example, what is it you are wearing? A shirt, shoes, belt, trousers. Ok, using common philosophy how would you describe those given objects? Well, a shirt is a thing which you wear, shoes are things which you put on, etc. There can be another abstraction layer to that as well, be it not specifically described as such. I am wearing a blue shirt and I am wearing a green pair of shoes. In The Systems Interaction Hypothesis, or just systems interactions system methodology you start by knowing you are talking about a given system and you describe knowing this fact around systems mechanistically. Your knowledge is solidly based on a known discrete chunk, that being a system. Systems can also be considered categories or, more abstractly taxonomies.

Yeah sure! Say I want to define a circle from what I am viewing. I would say that its boundaries are defined by its edges or its changes. These changes or edges are what define the given system. These edges can also be expressed as gradients in math which can then be related and compared. So a circle is a bounded expression. I can compare a circle system with other systems such as squares, diamonds, rectangles, etc.

In the past, I came up with a type of philosophy called "Systems Interaction Hypothesis." It states that a given object is a "thing" or system or concept which can interact with other systems. Each interaction is known as an "event." Each event is considered a connection or point of a holistic relationship between systems. Systems are the same as the general definition of a system, which is "a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network." A class or a categorization would be considered a system. Using this philosophy/framework, you would define concepts and objects as systems and their interactions as events. You could also combine the "Systems Interaction Hypothesis" with the philosophy of mechanism to state that a machine is a system that performs complex actions. This philosophy is designed to generalize philosophy by making it more mechanistic.

gotcha, thank ya.

Can you think of black holes as infinite potential wells?

I have been working on this problem as of late for a general purpose AI and have developed a principle I like to call the "Continuity" principle. It dictates that all things are continuously defined. Such as reason, observation, pattern recognition, awareness, etc.

What if you create magnetic little beads and the shoot them in the general trajectory of a metal debris fields which also can be electrically charged and uncharged. That way when ever there is a clumping of debris caused by the magnet beads + captured debris you can somehow shoot a beam of energy to control the momentum of the particles to slow them down enough to burn up in the atmosphere.

I have been looking at how to define a system for the longest time and wanted to share it with you all. "A system is a grouping representation of a practical pattern and/or process in which can be used to form new knowledge and fact that can further be actualized into tools and technologies."

I'm hoping to make this a life long awesome project that grows with me along with my other projects.

Thank you for the advice.

If at all possible I am looking for really good books on AI from all different fields of study.

I am assuming that it can be. Thank you, looking into it now

I was going to compare how I think to how it thinks. yeah, I am wanting ta build sort of a builder assistant while also learning as much theory as a kind to build it.

I mean like a formal definition of intelligence/cognition. One where it can be expressed by a computer.

That...is a very good question! Not sure yet. Thank you for bringing that up. I was going to compare my own reasoning to its reasoning and then compare and contrast.