Brad Jesness has added an update
May 16,2018
An Intro to the 600 pages that spell everything out (and compare/contrast with others and justify this approach)
For a quick overview of the system, see an update (of today) to the AI Project: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Developing-a-Usable-Empirically-Based-Outline-of-Human-Behavior-for-FULL-Artificial-Intelligence-and-for-Psychology?replyToId=5afb3843b53d2f63c3cc0411 Psychologists and Philosophers will want to read all the papers and essays.
Brad Jesness has added an update
May 14,2018
My position on philosophy and science, including on my science and my philosophy
MY POSITION ON PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE, so any interested analytic philosophers will know where I "am coming from.": Take I look at the assertions at the link direcly below; I counter this largely ridiculous crap: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-science-and-philosophy IF that were true and known, the answer to Questions about the relationship of science and philosophy would be known. <-- The "answers" you will find via that link, in actuality, are merely asserted definitions from a "world of fantasy." Truth is: Philosophy pays very little attention to Psychology and only in a biased and selective way when it suits the philosophers' purposes otherwise. (I've just read 100s of pages that has AGAIN shown me that.) Actually, philosophers patently NEGLECT relevant psychology and seem to be very largely ignorant of major, relevant, large portions of the field of Psychology. Psychology does not cite the "big debates" of philosophy -- not that I have seen to ANY notable extent, and certainly not to ANY meaningful extent. (I know; I "lived" Psychology for decades.) Philosophy NEVER "frames" the questions for psychology. Obviously: Philosophy simply "thinks" and asserts what it is, but in NO WAY that is generally accepted. Philosophy and science almost never "work together" and when they do little or nothing is accomplished. NOW: It is my intent to provide, in a good outline, _THE_ valid answer to the Question about philosophy and science (and I would submit that I address "philosophy and ANYTHING"). (The years that have passed seeking an Answer should be long enough to wait for an answer, and there is no reason there should not be an answer -- that is unless you like to wallow in the endless confusions of "philosophy" that is more than unclear (and, in fact, IS nonsense); clues that you may be in the latter miserable state are: define, define, debate, further define, further debate .. disagree ... -- all while observing NOTHING IN PARTICULAR , and observing nothing clearly or well.) It is MUCH more true that SCIENCE improves on ANY reasonable valid (or useful) "philosophy" than vice versa (i.e. rather than the case that philosophy "innovates" science). IN no sense is the view that "philosophy innovates science" in fact the case [and this will sound strange, until you read this entire essay], except in extraordinary circumstances, where there a need for a whole new perspective and approach (!!!). OVERALL: Science must much more than validate any philosophy, and much extends any understandings. What there would otherwise be is paltry "philosophy" (quite paltry stuff, by itself -- meaning little to most). I am about as sorry about this as anyone, for I AM A PHILOSOPHER. Now, here is my outlook/approach (and everything): It is my position that all good "philosophy" is part of science ("in science") -- the part accepting certain principles, including prominently: necessarily applicable principles (and any applicable laws), needed at the beginning of a [new] approach. That, as an outlook on at least a major part of the Subject matter, much as a whole, IS "philosophy" (and this may seem like an important part at the beginning of some science outlooks and approaches). But, though "in science" in that way, PHILOSOPHY IS THE LEAST OF IT -- because IN outlooks, perspectives, and approaches, subsequent to this role (and any valid role) of "philosophy", what come are real, related findings, OTHERWISE VERIFIED, with at least some clear grounding or foundation in what is directly, observable and overt (AND _THAT_ IS WHAT IS BY-FAR MOST IMPORTANT). Quickly the "philosophical beginnings" of any way of thinking should be nearly completely superseded by empirical findings <-- better, by better defining everything, including beginning assumptions (now more clearly and better defined [further] BY THE SUBJECT MATTER). In any good "going" science": Philosophy should not "show". There is NO good philosophy outside of this role as "part of science"; all other philosophy simply quickly becomes part of nonsense (for reasons I have well-indicated or explained in other places) -- and there is a LOT of that . ALL [thinking people], realizing this, explains why most modern philosophers say they are analytic philosophers, adding [supposedly] their good thinking to the thinking of others -- and thus maybe doing some "correcting". Unfortunately analytic philosophers mostly fail, or fail to be appreciated (maybe some of each). AND: many do most certainly fall into nonsense. There are, no doubt, some who still both start and end with nonsense. I AM a philosopher, but I hope this is the least of my work (and becomes less and less). In fact, I am a philosopher as much as anyone ! I am a post-post-modern philosopher, soon to maybe be a post-apocalyptic philosopher, and I truly believe I am among the best there is. Listen to me and be and live better. Current, existing, good findings in behavioral science bolster my view on limitations on thought, if attempted to be done otherwise (more "all in the head"): such thought quickly is, or quickly becomes, seriously biased or skewed -- basically because we (humans) cannot think about much well that is not found or verified IN OUR ENVIRONMENT and with that as supports in for our present thought (OR, relatedly, with supports from well-based reliable memory (reality-based)). As I see my Question and outlook as one of the few (at most) really worthwhile, with regard to philosophy, I shall just refer people there: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_philosophers_just_be_able_to_describe_with_full_conviction_and_looking_for_affirmation_the_way_SOME_important_things_seemingly_might_be and " Why is philosophy without science hopeless?" Find it here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_philosophy_without_science_hopeless Here are my major works for a new perspective and approach for Psychology, and for a new Psychology: A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc... and "Essentially, all Recent Essays on Ethogram Theory"