Sympérasmology: A Proposal for the Theory of Synthetic System Knowledge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author, 

Thank you for writing this article. It was thought-provoking to read about the theory of synthetic system knowledge. I have provided you with some recommendations below.

1. In the study, you employ ‘B.A.N.G. revolution’ as a commonly-used term, which, however, is not the case. At the same time, you note the ‘so-called B.A.N.G. revolution’. It is not clear who has called it so. I think it is worth explaining this concept.

2. Listing the industrial revolutions, you talk about the future: ‘cybermatics will bring nano-, computing, bio-, and connectivity technologies into an absolute synergy, which allows bio-physiological and sensory-cognitive augmentation, or even reconstruction of humans in the form of cyborgs’. Later in your text there is a question about the facts listed earlier. However, it does not seem correct to name theoretical predictions and the probable future as facts.

3. If, according to the author, ‘intelligence is the power of ... a system’, then complex engineered systems are driven by systelligence - ... dynamic system power of a system. This doesn’t appear to be correct and should be rectified.

This explanation does not clarify the author's vision and can lead to controversial conclusions due to ambiguity in the wording.

4. In the section ‘System knowledge in the literature’, the author concludes that ‘an agreement SEEMS to exist on that knowledge is a productive asset’. In this case, it is system knowledge in the literature that raises doubts. On the contrary: If the author is not sure of his own conclusions, then this kind of wording may cause the reader to mistrust his work.

5. The author uses the concept of 'systelligence' as widely known and self-explanatory. However, it is not. It is advisable to provide additional explanations.

6. The author asks himself the question ‘about what knowledge and mechanisms, if any, might make systems able to have feelings? And what does it mean in the context of intellectualized engineered systems?’

However, the answer to this question is not given in the work. It is only indicated that ‘though the importance of this matter is clearly seen, it will not be addressed at all in this paper’. The reason for raising this issue is therefore unclear, since it is neither the result of research, nor does it lead to any conclusions. It is unclear why this paragraph is needed.

7. The impersonal wording “it has been found” can make the reader feel that the author's conclusions are unreliable.

8. The term 'cognitive scientists' seems to be used inappropriately. Are there also ‘non-cognitive scientists’?

9. Figure 3 does not explain the approaches of processing system knowledge. It is advisable to further explain this figure. To what type of movement do the arrows refer? If there is some kind of ‘entrance’ (arrow below), then perhaps there should be an ‘exit’. However, apparently further movement is carried out in a circle. Further clarification is required.

10. The author separates 'gnosiology' and 'gnoseology' and devotes an entire paragraph to the analysis of these concepts without explaining the reason or necessity of such a differentiation. In this case, later in the text the concept of ‘gnoseology’ is used. It is also unclear how this relates to the subject of this study.

11. The author points out that 'Though the history of gnoseology is relatively long, it has not become common in philosophy and education ...'.

However, there are many works proving that gnosiology has formed an important part of philosophical manuals since Aristotle's time.

12. The author in this study proposes a new science: 'sympérasmology'. I am not sure that there is a need today to develop a new term and a new science for the study of the problems described by the author. However, I will not argue that there is no need for this either. The new concepts and categories that the author proposes in the work are reasoned at a sufficient level, and only time will tell if they are accepted by the scientific community.

GENERAL CONCLUSION

Using the wording of this study’s author of the definition of ‘knowledge’, that these are, among other things, ‘reasoned judgments aggregated by reasoning actions’, this study has all the necessary and sufficient parameters, so that it can be attributed to those that enrich science and generate knowledge.

However, some comments are of a fundamental nature and require attention from the author and corrections in the work.

Regards,

Author Response

Please see attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript proposes a new theoretical framework to describe the so-called "Synthetic System Knowledge" (SSK), including a lot of different perspectives on the concept of human and system knowledge.

Moreover, in my humble opinion, the concepts and the ideas reported in the manuscript are too abstract and poorly systemized to clearly understand the main contribution from a theoretical point of view. As a consequnce, it would be difficult for an engineer to design a tool able to incorporate the SSK formalized by the author. Minor: line 158: adjective instead of adverb

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a very nice paper and I would like to thank the editors to have allowed me to review it. It has allowed for me as well to reflect on some more fundamental philosophical bases of the topics that I work on. Very nice.

I would only recommend to have an English check, some very minor english corrections to be made. Other than that OK for me.

Author Response

"Please see attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

Thank you for your good effort in revising the paper. I find that the author has tried to take into account my comments, and hence, the paper has been improved and could be accepted for publication.

Best wishes.