I'll just rewrite the thesis with the same concept behind it and see if I can fit that in into the space allotted.

I've received some positive feedback since then so I'm more hopeful now.

Thanks, I meant that I post it elsewhere and they said it didn't develop a proper thesis. They didn't offer any constructive criticism so I'm looking to see if I can post it here.

But it's longer than the allotted amount of character space the forums allows for.

Hello, I like to write philosophical musings. I like to participate in debates but I'm currently going through a period where I like to write more than read.

I have questions about postings. Are there site resources for FAQ?

One post I made is too long and I had to upload it to medium. Not sure if I can start a thread and link to it. Also, I received some negative feedback on the post although I wrote in earnest. Hopefully that's not a problem.

This thread over here (incidentally) touches part of the concept:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3169/what-is-the-point-of-the-regress-argument

As well as Hegel's Thesis - Anti-Thesis -> Synthesis.

But rather than have it laid out like that, I have it Premise-System->Conclusion.

Because the only thing that we're ever aware of is the conclusion as a matter of fact. We never see the thesis, anti-thesis, premise, system. We only see the synthesis/conclusion and from there we have to move forward.

The infinite regress is what leads the abyss. We're not aware of what the premise or thesis is for the world existing but for us to think logically, we need premises and thesis to move forward. We find these premises and thesis in the conclusion/synthesis.

You can grasp at the conclusion/synthesis to avoid falling into the abyss/God/infinity or you can be the ubermench/knight of faith and jump into the abyss/God.

I'll pop around again (hopefully) and it'll be clearer.

The world is not a "conclusion." It's not a logical construct. — T Clark

I would say the world is a process. A process doesn't necessarily have a conclusion but it has byproducts. We as byproducts understand the world in "moments" and these moments are ultimately made up of conclusions. And those conclusions can be broken up to other conclusions or loops. Each conclusion depends on premises by the very nature of what a conclusion is. This is sort of alluding to Descartes' Cogito. If the world is a process and we're just a process, then we ourselves don't have a conclusion in the way that we understand it. But for us to understand the process, we have to understand it in terms of conclusions. Even the term process is a conclusion. Just a conclusion that is a bit of a loop. It is because it does and it does because it is.

I'm acknowledging how silly this sounds and I try not to misuse science for philosophical pursuits but even at a cognitive level, human beings perceive everything in tiny moments. This perception is a system. Your different sensory organs converging converge in such and such a way as to give you awareness of reality. And this system is full of premises (both unconscious and unconscious) and conclusions (this chair is brown, this cake is good, that's a chair, that's a cake :eyes: )

Each moment you're restructuring your awareness with tiny little moments that make up your reality. Each and everything in your awareness (regardless if it's visual or auditory or taste, etc) is a conclusion to your system. Even if you're not aware of it. For you to be able to understand anything, you have to arrive at a conclusion concerning it. If you're sitting in front of a screen reading this, you're unconsciously aware of everything around you. Even if you're not keen on something, you have a belief that your surrounding in such and such a way even if you haven't checked your surroundings in a bit. Those conclusions are the same kind of conclusions that allow you to read this without thinking about the color of the background or the color of the letters.

The Bible says "In the beginning was the word," but that doesn't make it true. — T Clark

I wasn't there. I'm not sure. :chin:

I've been thinking about starting a thread on philosophies which misunderstand words as having real existence in the world. Is that what you're saying? — T Clark

I just think conclusions are everywhere and premises and systems are just implied.

You mentioned Eastern concepts. I think Eastern meditation and western philosophy-type reflection and critical thinking and so forth originate in the same concept of accepting the conclusion for what it is rather than react to a conclusion. You look at the conclusion and you think about the possible premises that could have caused it to be as in the case of philosophy. Or you take the conclusion for what it is without considering any pseudo premise or pseudo system that may influence the conclusion for what it is as in the case of meditation.

Premises do not direct the movement of the universe. — T Clark

No. But for us to understand the movement of the universe or anything we have to digest them through premises and systems. The tiny little moments that make up our reality each function at a basis of having premises as to why they are in your awareness. And through irony you can change the conclusion of the premises. Because irony allows you to see conclusions independent of any one set of premises.

Pseudo-premises and pseudo-systems are pseudo not because they don't act as premises or because they don't act as systems but rather they are only realized once the conclusion has been processed. They are acting as premises and acting as systems but that can only be seen through the conclusion or as conclusions unto themselves.

For a moment I wondered if what you're getting at is something like an Eastern concept of the world as coming into existence when it is named. I don't think that's what you're saying. — T Clark

In a pragmatic sense, the worldview you have is a composite of experiences, abstraction, and logical necessities from those abstractions (I haven't had a strawberry I like, ergo "I don't like strawberry" becomes one of the conclusion that makes up your worldview without you ever tasting every strawberry). Every worldview is already a conclusion and its premises are only evident once the conclusions act as a premise for a system to demonstrate the conclusion. For example, "I think therefore I am."

Thanks for the compliment!

When you think of logic, you think of a premise that leads to a conclusion. From the premises, there's certain conclusions you can reach.

If you say that the universe is predetermined what you're saying is that there are premises working at the moment that are directing the movement of universe. The premises are "working" inside a system that produces the conclusions that are all around us. This is the case because to enact the concept of "predetermination" means to imply that there is a conclusion that was arrived at before we became aware of it; therefore our conclusions are just conclusions that were determined at the beginning of the universe. Or rather, not "at the beginning of the universe" (if we don't want to presuppose a beginning), but because of the "nature" of the universe, all movements existing inside the universe are processed via scientific laws that determine the conclusion.

The concept in a very board sense is (Premises -> System -> Conclusion).

So we just used the example of the universe and predetermination to understand that concept. But we can also understand the concept of Systems in the existential sense.

Every time you make a statement, it's a conclusion you've reached from premises (regardless of whether you're aware of the premises or not). For example, "I'm a human being" is a conclusion that partly rests on premises of English grammar. At the moment I'm not saying "I'm a human being" in any other language although there might exist another language, Hsilgne, where "I'm a human being" can be translated to English as "The Eiffel Tower is in Paris."

Let's say you speak Hsilgne. And when you read "I'm a human being," you understood what I would understand as "The Eiffel Tower is in Paris." Regardless of how you interpreted the phrase "I'm a human being," you used a System of grammar to process the premise "I'm a human being." But the premise "I'm a human being" is a conclusion. Not a premise. It can be a premise or function as a premise but before it can do/be either, it has to be a conclusion. If it wasn't a conclusion, it wouldn't exist.

For something to exist it has to be a conclusion. But the conclusion implies a premise that is necessary for the conclusion to exist. And the conclusion implies a system that produced it.

For you to say "I exist" means to imply that you are a conclusion. To say that you are a conclusion means to say that you exist insides a system that uses certain premises to produce you. The premises and system are unknown. But not entirely unknown. The conclusion is evidence of both the system and premises.

So lets say you have the following evidence or conclusion:
2+2=4
5+3=8
4+4=8

Once you have those conclusions, you can deduce certain conclusions from the system and premises. What does the system "+" do? What's the significance of the 2,3,4,5,8? Does does "=" do?

You establish patterns that lead into the unknown (the premises and the system) but all you start with is the conclusion.

The paradox is that the conclusion (since the premises and systems are unknown) acts as the premise and system for further conclusions; so what is known is the foundation to find out what is unknown based on what is known so the "known" will always be part of the conclusion of what is known about the unknown. So how do we know what's not known?

The scientific method is a system that takes in premises and establishes conclusions. So you're probably wondering "why are the premises, systems and conclusion known in the scientific method if you claim that the premises and systems are unknowns?"

Well, that's a good question. Because what I'm saying has implications concerning all systems: scientific fields of studies, math, language, this very explanation, psychology, self-awareness, etc.

My response would be that all those are pseudo-systems operating with pseudo-premises since they're always operating with conclusions acting as premises and systems.

Everything is a conclusion that serves as evidence for the system and premises that produced it. But this is only true insofar as the conclusion can function as a torch or light towards the unknown, or Abyss, or God, or Nothingness.

It would be stupid to say that a house is a pseudo-conclusion if it's produced by architects and a building crew. The house is a true conclusion but it only functions to refer to the premises and system that produced it insofar that it can reflect and refer to the premise and system that produced it. Most of the time the conclusion can be described in broad strokes. For example, you see a house and you notice the quality of work, the dimensions, the designs, the material used. You deduce certain principles that led to the conclusions you reach regarding the origins of the house but it's only evident from the conclusion.

The bloom is substituted for what it is not, that which is unobtainable. — Nils Loc

But you yourself are a bloom. Participating in various blooms because you're made up of blooms and you yourself impact countless other blooms.. Everything you know is a bloom and everything you don't know is a bloom. Because bloom is everything there is.