system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
what do you call it when you reduce every object to its functions?

I've thought about this topic a lot and generally I believe this: no object has any properties outside of its interactions with the outside world. For example I don't believe that a white rock has any properties inherent to it like being white colored or being hard or jagged, rather is has functions, like the white color is just the way our eyes, the rock and light particles interact, the hardness is the way it interacts with e.g. a hammer, and the jaggedness is a function of our skin.

Put another way if you write down the interactions between one object x and every other possible object then you have essentially defined x. In fact without those interaction there is no x, speaking about x in itself is completely meaningless.

My question is, what is this called and where do I read more about it? I don't even know what branch of philosophy to look for this topic in. it's just something I thought about and kinda convinced myself of while learning about functional programming and I really wanna learn more about what smart people have to say about it. 

To expand a bit more on this, the biggest implications of this framework is the way it interacts with humans and consciousness or sentience. I don't recognize anything inner or hidden in the brain of a human unless it interacts or manifests in the outside world in some way, and then that interaction is what the feeling that caused it essentially is, and there is no meaning outside of that interaction(s). Like there is no sense in talking about the feeling of pain outside of where it comes from and the way it makes us behave. This led me to some insane conclusions like that anything the can make any decision, like for example a transistor, is sentient, and I can't convince myself of anything else.
gpt
I have never seen someone naturally stumble upon the thought of object oriented ontology, but somehow you have (don’t take this as an insult, it’s genuinely surprising). If you want to read into both supporters and critics of this view, check out the following: 1) Graham Harman’s texts *Object Oriented Ontology* along with *Tool-Being*. This is the main proponent of the view you described. 2) Peter Wolfendale’s *Object Oriented Philosophy: The Noumenon’s New Clothes*. Perhaps the most systematic critique of OOO, the entirety of the book is dedicated to pointing out the possible shortcomings of Harman’s work. Take a look at both, see where you land.