EN ABSTRACTA: ON NEO-CODES DRAFT ABSTRACT: I introduce the concept of neo-codes. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Without meaning to imply any degree of laziness, in earlier systems and critiques a limitation has been shown to the following methods: (1) Deliberation, because it so easily misses exceptions. (2) Dialectic, because it creates distended arguments. (3) Logical argument, because premises are rejected if they are not absolutely accepted. (4) Seeking limited exceptions, because this is usually fallaciously incoherent. The scientific method can be ignored as irrelevant to philosophy. That topic has been debated before I think the result is often the conclusion that science is not nearly perfect enough in matters of abstracta (at least not from a consumerist point of view) to handle problems that are philosophical in an organized way. Maybe a philosopher could be a ‘scientist’, but this is not because he actually uses scientific methods. Instead it is simply a mark of how polished his philosophical methodology has become.. If the scientific method can be ignored, and so too can the above methods, this does not leave much territory. The traditional answer is some sort of language or existential answer. Someone may return to studying the oft-repeated ‘fundamental problems,’ whether of philosophy, culture, politics, tautology, or etc. However, many language approaches become dialectic, which is already number two on our list, and it is my belief that existentialism lacks the technology to have a coherent argument. Although it is not a logical argument, it simultaneously is not logical enough. If every form of philosophy should be a technology, when logic is abandoned then there are not many choices. However, I find an exception which has priory been found by grammaticians, namely, the appeal and techne of definitions. What I propose is a new (and optional) approach to language philosophy, the use of neo-codes. A neo-code is a systematic intellectualization within a certain quantity of words, in which it is attempted prior to the formal arrangement, to conceive of every possible ‘exponent’ upon significance that might be afforded. If there is any major failure by the highest conceivable standard of intellect, then the word must be changed so that it is closer to one or more of the other words. When the result is impressive, one must consider if the impressiveness has a weakness, and if so, then alter the words again. In this second stage, more than one word can be altered simultaneously, providing a ladder to much better (if available) combinations. In this paper I will choose to focus on four distinct neo-codes, as listed in the following: MITA: Missing Integer Translation Application ACOT: Application for Computing Objective Tangibility PICA: Program for Improving Computer Applications STATI: System for Transferring Applications to Images Why are these statements significant? It does require a little thought. And thought provides a minimum standard for the intellectual discretion. The significance is potentially supernatural, but it is also potentially relevant. And I suspect that that is often true with the results that are most desirable. Interestingly, there is a trend (a mathematical trend) where it is easier to produce results with one word than two ( ‘soul’, ‘world’), two words than three ( ‘impossible machine’, ‘linear algebra’), and three words than four (‘patent for an energy generator’, ‘scientific method of quantity’). The excess of meaningless phrases for a larger number of words is produced not from a lack of difficulty, but rather from a lack of success. What does ‘missing integer translation application’ (MITA) mean? It is a way of testing the ultimate significance of numbers, by guessing (hypothetically) what the objective ‘missing number’ is, within experience. This might lead to further philosophical conclusions, like ‘there might be another type of number’ or ‘there is no such objective mathematics’ or ‘there could be a new theory of mathematics in general.’ What does the ‘application for computing objective tangibility’ (ACOT) mean? It is a concept of a computer that itself (presumably through computation) realizes the objective tangibility of some or all parts of reality. This could raise additional philosophical questions, such as: ‘Does life compute?,’ ‘Is tangibility computable?,’ and ‘What does it mean if tangibility is irrational or non-computable?’ It might also raise the additional question of whether computers are rational, that is, whether they can ever provide a standard for rationality. Perhaps if they could provide a standard, then they could also compute tangibility. Then there is the question, of do humans compute, do humans rationalize tangibility, leading to questions of intentionality. What does ‘program for improving computer applications’ (PICA) mean? It is the theory that there could be a general computer application which has objective principles built in for modifying how other computer programs function, by reading their code, modifying them, and re-issuing them using advanced rubrics and code structures. Philosophy of some or many types could be built into the software. The result would be an amazing platform, not just for depreciating the value of software, but also for improving the objective equity or content of the software. Given such an organized program, question are raised, such as: ‘is centralization the true nature of methodology?,’ ‘Is improvement at some point equated with visual improvement? And is that a low or high standard of systematizing?,’ or ‘What is the relation between information production and information consumption?.’ Further question arise as to what the relationship is between metaphysical information and metaphysical consumption. What is originality? And what is personal capital? Must people be practical if they have already been useful? What does ‘system for transferring applications to images’ (STATI) mean? It means a way of abbreviating complex functions into usable information, either progressively or reductively, producing for example, simple versions of complex systems, and complex versions of simple systems. Systems could also be granted architectural, psychological, and other accessory manifestations, as represented in an electronic format. This raises philosophical questions such as ‘Are applications higher-functional images?,’ ‘Are there ideal manifestations of images / e.g. universally perfectible images?,’ and ‘Can images compute?’ Having raised those questions with the idea of posing them as an organized body, I will leave off this discussion. But I do welcome comments. Nathan Coppedge, SCSU 10/15/2013