ALine

thank you, apologies.

Well no, each is an independent pattern.

They can be, these are patterns.

This is an idea I have been mulling around in my head for a while.

I think that's more deeper level analysis of understanding, whereas a more a surface level understanding needs to be developed first

Why does it matter to know what the experience of a raven is? Knowing something experience does not give you knowledge about it, only giving you an awareness of its condition.

Thanks for that. Did not realize that it was already popularized. I thought there were other methods to increase and decrease the proton number. Thus changing the element?

A new concept I have come up with is called "unstable chemistry" in which you transmute chemical elements from one element to another by using radioactive decay to either increase an atom's proton number or decrease an atom's proton number.

I call it the machine hierarchy. It's designed so that each concept stacks on top of the other to be used to express the next concept above it. I do not know that it is right. 1 identity (0th order) // generator // equal sign // identity matrix // tensor product // nuclear space // M-order 0 space || \/ 2 geometry (1st order) // operator // mass // schwartz space // M-order 1 space (pronoun formed, the order in which an intelligence developed) || \/ 3 space (2nd order) // tensor // // metric // acceleration // real coordinate space // M-order n space (antecedent formed) life || \/ 1 action (3rd order) // energy // homomorphism // indefinite inner product space (behaviors formed), life, splitting, door, domino || \/ 2 event (4th order) // force // m*a // webbed space (consequence formed) sign, organization, symbol, [[reaction]] || \/ 3 data (5th order) // Frechet Space (x,memory formed) life, cell division || \/ 2 process (7th order) // protocol, x[reaction] // Gaussian elimination // algorithm // cycle // K-Space (x.perception formed) || \/ 3 function (8th order) // function in mathematics // BK-space (relationship formed), (work?) // (maybe functional??) // heirarchys // [[[the mechanicumalitous]]] || \/ 1 structure (9th order) // Graph,... ( Domain, Signature, Interpretation Function ) [graph matrix] // FK space (statement formed) || \/ 2 mechanism (10th order) // metabolism // virus // matrix decomposition // differential equations // Fk-AK space (x,belief formed) // neural networks can get here /// x,single ant // like an engine, machines of nature, || \/ //////// biology starts here 3 phenomenon (11th order) // a science // a combustion // a law // a prokaryotic cell // dynamics systems theory // Banach Space (truth formed) /// (((Like a lighting strike))) //release || \/ 1 observation (12th order) // eukaryotic cell // locally convex topologocal vector space (x,information formed), statement, thought, attention, study, feeling, result, impression, || \/ 2 pattern (13th order) // sociology // Brauner Space (learning formed?) [ waves ] //communication // hypo: mathematics // repeatable sequence || \/ /////// ecology starts here 3 architype (14th order) / // Complex Coordinate Space (concept formed), prototype, original, ideal, (((form))), (((?,blueprint))), ancestor, precursor, conception, (((x,idea))) || \/ 1 order (15th order) // smith space (sequence formed), (x,law), system, categorization, command // amoeba || \/ 2 meaning (16th order) // bornological space // Ordered topological vector space (grammar formed), [[[learning done???]]] || \/ 3 understanding (17th order) // Ordered topological vector space (language formed) // SEOS can get up to here, (((apprehension, comprehension, discernment, interpretation, perception, cognizance, ken))) /// language uses signs/events to communicate || \/ ///// hypo: psychology/mind begins here ///exiting ecology development 1 intuition (18th order), (((idea))) // montrel space (knowledge formed) || \/ 2 goal (19th order) // barreled space (goals formed) // operating system objective, aim, target, design, desire, intent, plan, purpose, (x,idea), point || \/ 3 task (20th order) // infrabarrelled space (tasks formed) // this is your goal for tonight // hypo: ants are here || \/ 1 reasoning (21th order) // ultrabarreled space (problems formed) // (x,ants), logic formed /// (control?) || \/ 2 thinking (22th order) // quasibarreled space (solutions formed) || \/ 3 introspection (23th order) // quasi-ultrabarrelled space (x,ideas formed) // belief formed. || \/ 1 self (24th order) // ultrabornalogical space (decisions formed), ///personality, ///ego // will || \/ 2 awareness (25th order) // DF space (attention formed) || \/ 3 intelligence (26th order) // Distinguished space // is able to get to by a computer, neuron? || \/ 1 cognition (27th order) // LB Space || \/ 2 conciousness (28th order) // LF Space, bees || \/ 3 sub conciousness (29th order) // mackey space || \/ 1 unconciousness (30th order) // ptak space // agi, || \/ 2 brain (31th order) // Gelfand-Shilov Space, humans here || \/ /// cosmology starts here 3 universe (32th order) // Complete Topological Vector Space || \/ 1 multiverse (33th order) // Metrizable topological vector space // with time definition || \/ 2 omniverse (34th order) // semi-Hilbert Space

I would disagree. I think that machines are less cut and dry than that. An example of this is a finite state machine with states and state transformations that express different degrees of information based on representations of that information.

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.