A new form of philosophy I came up with

[ALine]

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.

 

[zapatos]

Can you give me an example of your new form of philosophy in action?

[ALine]

26 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you give me an example of your new form of philosophy in action?

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.

[zapatos]

58 minutes ago, ALine said:

I can compare a circle system with other systems such as squares, diamonds, rectangles, etc.

Can't we do that already? What is the benefit of your new system?

[ALine]

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.

 

Edited Saturday at 03:30 AM by ALine

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, ALine said:

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.

 

To what end?

How does this help me think about reality, better than I do now?

13 hours ago, ALine said:

This philosophy is designed to generalize philosophy by making it more mechanistic.

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.

 

[naitche]

Seems to me this is already covered with The Objective and subjective realities.

We have The Objective reality, being a defined system, marginalized by its definition, Subtracted from all subjects not conforming to that definition.

We can further define, or subtract, its content by definition, objectively. Not inclusive of anything beyond the margins of definition. In Objection to.

Negative value.

Interactions/actions/events all being Subjective, or in relationship to...Positive  value.

the Objective is served through its subjective/content action, to achieve reality or summation. As modeled by Mathematics. Same mechanics.

Edited Sunday at 12:29 AM by naitche

[ALine]

On 12/14/2024 at 7:21 AM, dimreepr said:

To what end?

How does this help me think about reality, better than I do now?

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.

On 12/14/2024 at 7:21 AM, dimreepr said:

On 12/13/2024 at 6:18 PM, ALine said:

This philosophy is designed to generalize philosophy by making it more mechanistic.

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.

23 hours ago, naitche said:

Seems to me this is already covered with The Objective and subjective realities.

We have The Objective reality, being a defined system, marginalized by its definition, Subtracted from all subjects not conforming to that definition.

We can further define, or subtract, its content by definition, objectively. Not inclusive of anything beyond the margins of definition. In Objection to.

Negative value.

Interactions/actions/events all being Subjective, or in relationship to...Positive  value.

the Objective is served through its subjective/content action, to achieve reality or summation. As modeled by Mathematics. Same mechanics

I do not know anything in philosophy dealing with "negative" values. And I think events and actions and interactions can be empirical as well.

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, ALine said:

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.

But I'm not a machine...

[ALine]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But I'm not a machine...

What makes you think that?

[naitche]

On 12/16/2024 at 10:56 AM, ALine said:

 

I do not know anything in philosophy dealing with "negative" values. And I think events and actions and interactions can be empirical as well.

More clearly then, the Objective is Negative of  value, if all value is subjective.

Yes, Events, actions and interactions can be empirical as well, when viewed in isolation. In the Objective.

If viewed in relation to something else though, its subjective.

There is one reality, The objective and subjective making up its duality. 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, ALine said:

What makes you think that?

Because I don't have a USB port, let's not get into a semantic argument, it just muddies the water; which is my point about machine's.

You're introducing an unnecessary level of complexity, which is essentially the antipode of philosophical thinking; what you're suggesting is like asking someone to learn a different language before expressing you're thoughts about our own society...  

Edited yesterday at 12:18 PM by dimreepr

[naitche]

9 hours ago, naitche said:

More clearly then, the Objective is Negative of  value, if all value is subjective.

Yes, Events, actions and interactions can be empirical as well, when viewed in isolation. In the Objective.

If viewed in relation to something else though, its subjective.

There is one reality, The objective and subjective making up its duality. 

You are the observer of of an object( your 'system')  in its total summation,

Or you are the observer of relationships/values provided between or within sums.

Either Or. 

Edited yesterday at 12:42 PM by naitche