Jump to content

Philosophical Research:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Philosophical Research
← Older editNewer edit →
m category
adapt letter 25-5-17 intro
Line 1: Line 1:
We will worry about properly describing this thing later.
Ever heard of a game where you add any two concepts together?<br />
You [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Craft probably] [https://weekly.wordiverse.com/p/landmarks-within-a-dream have]. But, what if the game actually made sense? What if, you know, it was actually based on the [[Philosophical Research:MDem/4.3/6951 plus|interactions of the objects involved]] instead of turning every combination of two terms into a bad pun? LLMs can't do that. Not in an era where computers can render entire rooms of objects with different simulated materials through collision boxes and raytracing.
 
<s>And why not? In short, because [[redlink|language can never touch grass]]</s>
The problem? At any given moment, language is [[redlink - Gödel's incompleteness theorem|inherently static]]. [[redlink|Language can never touch grass]]. Language can never actually go outside and test itself against the world. Ask a book a question and all it can practically do is respond with what terms or concepts are strongly connected to other arbitrary concepts. But what if we were to fix only two things about language? Get rid of the words. Get rid of the rigid connections. Now what is left is an empty beaker in which nameless yet meaningful lumps of stuff constantly run into each other and connect in only the ways that make sense. When the drops trace understandable paths into bigger things we write them down. If the paths are a bit wrong we run the reactions again. Seed. Caryopsis. Stalk. Chlorophyll. Grass. Keep the paths going, keep the [[redlink - ontology|local graphs of concepts]] in [[redlink - meta-ontologically sound|interaction with each other]], and before you know it, a simple net of lines on paper <em>can</em> touch grass. It only requires the [[redlink - scientific method|willingness to learn]], in the way language itself cannot.
 
Litho<em>graph</em>ica is three things: a catalog of [[:Category:Hue-format fake Items|signifiers and objects]], a [[:Category:Thesis portals|research notebook]], and an old-school [[:Category:Wavebuilder ontology|simulation]] of discovery processes and philosophies. The word "processes" in the plural is important — every reasonable route to land at one thing from another which feels worth noting is traced through separately. Different <s>lines</s> tracks of reasoning are coded into different parallel [[:Category:S2 Double-Signifying Statements|propositions]]; different philosophies or fields of knowledge may be coded in [[:Category:Item colors ontology|different colors]]. Everything begins with one big, weird treasure hunt to find particular motifs and observations that really matter. You pin them up on a board. You break seemingly-simple units down into constellations of smaller dots and begin connecting the dots. You make several constellations into a bigger constellation. Ultimately, you will learn not just <em>how to</em> reason, but how all of us <em>already</em> reason, and how each of those forms of reasoning part from properly understanding the ongoing tumult of objects and processes they came out of. You may be surprised at how precise the processes of language can be if only they were [[redlink - ontological model / physics equation?|used for good]]. But when things get tough, or you simply want a break to make things the way you want to, you can also [[redlink - Wavebuilder dictionary|create your own graph file]] with anything in it. Analyze the rhetorical or narrative structure of existing works, or put up your own speculative "thesis" consisting of articles, essays, or short stories where the purpose of your maps is not to get lost. Or do both.
 
Sometimes this thing is a tool. Sometimes it's an educational game. Sometimes it's a glorified bibliography where the sources that would go at the bottom of a Wikipedia page steal the spotlight and make you actually go read. This thing is not here to lecture you with one big waterfall of [[redlink - S1 don't cite Wikipedia|sometimes chewed-up statements]] a bunch of experts over in some hidden tower somewhere said, it's here for the actual messy process of learning. (With a tiny side of [[User:Reversedragon/Wavebuilder/2410-22 wave-score|spreadsheets]] turning four-function calculators into mileposts.)
 
Combine [[redlink - dragon|fire with lizard]], combine [[redlink - London Fog|milk with tea]], combine [[Ontology:Q819|set theory with the axiom of choice]], combine <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> with workers' movement to get galactic Trotskyism. The future is in your hands, but first you have to take up [[redlink - Promethean task|your torch]] and [[:Category:Historical materialism ontology (general-sense)|find it]].


== Ontology project (Main / Ontology:) ==
== Ontology project (Main / Ontology:) ==

Revision as of 14:24, 13 June 2025

Ever heard of a game where you add any two concepts together?
You probably have. But, what if the game actually made sense? What if, you know, it was actually based on the interactions of the objects involved instead of turning every combination of two terms into a bad pun? LLMs can't do that. Not in an era where computers can render entire rooms of objects with different simulated materials through collision boxes and raytracing.

And why not? In short, because language can never touch grass The problem? At any given moment, language is inherently static. Language can never touch grass. Language can never actually go outside and test itself against the world. Ask a book a question and all it can practically do is respond with what terms or concepts are strongly connected to other arbitrary concepts. But what if we were to fix only two things about language? Get rid of the words. Get rid of the rigid connections. Now what is left is an empty beaker in which nameless yet meaningful lumps of stuff constantly run into each other and connect in only the ways that make sense. When the drops trace understandable paths into bigger things we write them down. If the paths are a bit wrong we run the reactions again. Seed. Caryopsis. Stalk. Chlorophyll. Grass. Keep the paths going, keep the local graphs of concepts in interaction with each other, and before you know it, a simple net of lines on paper can touch grass. It only requires the willingness to learn, in the way language itself cannot.

Lithographica is three things: a catalog of signifiers and objects, a research notebook, and an old-school simulation of discovery processes and philosophies. The word "processes" in the plural is important — every reasonable route to land at one thing from another which feels worth noting is traced through separately. Different lines tracks of reasoning are coded into different parallel propositions; different philosophies or fields of knowledge may be coded in different colors. Everything begins with one big, weird treasure hunt to find particular motifs and observations that really matter. You pin them up on a board. You break seemingly-simple units down into constellations of smaller dots and begin connecting the dots. You make several constellations into a bigger constellation. Ultimately, you will learn not just how to reason, but how all of us already reason, and how each of those forms of reasoning part from properly understanding the ongoing tumult of objects and processes they came out of. You may be surprised at how precise the processes of language can be if only they were used for good. But when things get tough, or you simply want a break to make things the way you want to, you can also create your own graph file with anything in it. Analyze the rhetorical or narrative structure of existing works, or put up your own speculative "thesis" consisting of articles, essays, or short stories where the purpose of your maps is not to get lost. Or do both.

Sometimes this thing is a tool. Sometimes it's an educational game. Sometimes it's a glorified bibliography where the sources that would go at the bottom of a Wikipedia page steal the spotlight and make you actually go read. This thing is not here to lecture you with one big waterfall of sometimes chewed-up statements a bunch of experts over in some hidden tower somewhere said, it's here for the actual messy process of learning. (With a tiny side of spreadsheets turning four-function calculators into mileposts.)

Combine fire with lizard, combine milk with tea, combine set theory with the axiom of choice, combine Dragon Ball with workers' movement to get galactic Trotskyism. The future is in your hands, but first you have to take up your torch and find it.

Ontology project (Main / Ontology:)

MDem book drafts / Thesis portals

Extensions that need to be installed or enabled

Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Philosophical_Research:Main_Page&oldid=5176"