The following is an analysis of the works of Christopher Alexander’s Notes on the Synthesis of Form and Herbert Simon’s The Sciences of the Artificial. It contains explanations of the concepts of the artifice, the form, and the form making process; and explanations on how the artifice, form and form making process can be relevant to policy making. Included is a discussion of Simon’s concept of the inner environment and outer environment of the human decision maker, and the abilities in their relation to decision making. According to Simon there are three principles of complexity that allow humans to understand a complex problem and simplify it. The analysis includes a discussion of these three principles of complexity and how the components of complexity relate to decision making.
Christopher Alexander’s Notes on the Synthesis of Form provides a generalization of explaining design problems. The ultimate object of design is form, and
Fitness is a mutually accepted relationship between context and form, and the goal in problem solving is to put the context and form into a frictionless coexistence (Alexander, 1964, page 19). A simple example of a form context ensemble and quality of fit is the suit and tie ensemble. To achieve a good quality suit and tie ensemble it is necessary to consider both the style and color of both the suit and the tie. A high quality design would be how well the suit and tie match or how well they fit together. A low quality design would be how misfit the form and context are, or how unmatched the suit and tie are. Just as in form and its context designers are worried about fit, so are the designers of an artifice. They concern themselves with how things should be in order to achieve the goals and functions of the artifice. To achieve a good fit from Simon’s perspective is how well adapted is the inner environment to the outer
Lawson, Bryan. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. 4th ed. Oxford: Architectural Press, 2006.
The purpose of this paper is to present John Searle’s Chinese room argument in which it challenges the notions of the computational paradigm, specifically the ability of intentionality. Then I will outline two of the commentaries following, the first by Bruce Bridgeman, which is in opposition to Searle and uses the super robot to exemplify his point. Then I will discuss John Eccles’ response, which entails a general agreement with Searle with a few objections to definitions and comparisons. My own argument will take a minimalist computational approach delineating understanding and its importance to the concepts of the computational paradigm.
The process of making a decision previously held two paths, rational and irrational, with rational having the mind at work to think about what were the choices and irrational with no really engagement. Anything beyond that process of thought was not taken until the topic of System 1 and System 2 along with effects of “Relativity” were expressed in Thinking Fast and Slow, by Kahnemna and Predictably Irrational by Ariely, respectfully. Along with the other readings, the process of our decision making were no longer solely based on two very simplified and underdeveloped ideas, but as series of network and systems of decisions the minds functions through.
John Searle’s Chinese room argument from his work “Minds, Brains, and Programs” was a thought experiment against the premises of strong Artificial Intelligence (AI). The premises of conclude that something is of the strong AI nature if it can understand and it can explain how human understanding works. I will argue that the Chinese room argument successfully disproves the conclusion of strong AI, however, it does not provide an explanation of what understanding is which becomes problematic when creating a distinction between humans and machines.
ABSTRACT: I examine some recent controversies involving the possibility of mechanical simulation of mathematical intuition. The first part is concerned with a presentation of the Lucas-Penrose position and recapitulates some basic logical conceptual machinery (Gödel's proof, Hilbert's Tenth Problem and Turing's Halting Problem). The second part is devoted to a presentation of the main outlines of Complexity Theory as well as to the introduction of Bremermann's notion of transcomputability and fundamental limit. The third part attempts to draw a connection/relationship between Complexity Theory and undecidability focusing on a new revised version of the Lucas-Penrose position in light of physical a priori limitations of computing machines. Finally, the last part derives some epistemological/philosophical implications of the relationship between Gödel's incompleteness theorem and Complexity Theory for the mind/brain problem in Artificial Intelligence and discusses the compatibility of functionalism with a materialist theory of the mind.
The first theory argues that art is an imitation of reality. The inability to represent reality flawlessly results in a piece of...
Rational choice theory, developed by Ronald Clarke and Derek Cornish in 1985, is a revival of Cesare Becca...
Lawson, Bryan. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. NY: Architectural Press, 1980, 2007. Massachusetts: NECSI Knowledge Press, 2004.
Philosophers in 400 B.C saw the human mind as a sort of machine, and believed it operated through encoded knowledge that decided which actions to take. Mathematicians since then developed complex logic and mathematical systems to determine decision-making pathways. From Charles Babbage’s basic adding machines through to complex computing systems of modern day have formed the basis for complex computational problem solving. Psychologists in the last one hundred years
The traditional notion that seeks to compare human minds, with all its intricacies and biochemical functions, to that of artificially programmed digital computers, is self-defeating and it should be discredited in dialogs regarding the theory of artificial intelligence. This traditional notion is akin to comparing, in crude terms, cars and aeroplanes or ice cream and cream cheese. Human mental states are caused by various behaviours of elements in the brain, and these behaviours in are adjudged by the biochemical composition of our brains, which are responsible for our thoughts and functions. When we discuss mental states of systems it is important to distinguish between human brains and that of any natural or artificial organisms which is said to have central processing systems (i.e. brains of chimpanzees, microchips etc.). Although various similarities may exist between those systems in terms of functions and behaviourism, the intrinsic intentionality within those systems differ extensively. Although it may not be possible to prove that whether or not mental states exist at all in systems other than our own, in this paper I will strive to present arguments that a machine that computes and responds to inputs does indeed have a state of mind, but one that does not necessarily result in a form of mentality. This paper will discuss how the states and intentionality of digital computers are different from the states of human brains and yet they are indeed states of a mind resulting from various functions in their central processing systems.
Hegeman, J. (2008). The Thinking Behind Design. Master Thesis submitted to the school of design, Carngie Mellon University. Retrieved from: http://jamin.org/portfolio/thesis-paper/thinking-behind-design.pdf.
Karrie Jacobs, “The Power of Inadvertent Design”, Metropolis, V. 23, N. 6 (Feb 2004), 50.
Marius Bewley, The Eccentric Design: Form in the Classic American Novel, Columbia University Press, 1959
One of the key ideas of the modern era was to forge the designs of the future on the corpses of the past, disregarding everything from the last era and moving forward with new ideals and styles. Refining and discarding they shaped, molded and constricted the ideas of design until reaching the pinnacle of minimalism. Creating design with pure aesthetics and reducing an object down to its core fundamental elements. Using the ideas of “less is more” or even “using less for more”, the designs ended up simple and elegant with a focus not in quantit...
One of the greatest philosophers to contribute the philosophy is Plato, who was a student of Socrates. Plato introduced the Theory of Forms, which states that what is real is not the objects we see, but rather the idea of Forms (Moore and Bruder, n.d., 35). Plato’s theory states that the objects we see in life, such as a chair, are not real and are only an object noticeable because it participates in the idea of a Form. The idea of Forms is what defines and makes an object such as a chair real. Further, in the book Philosophy The Power of Ideas by Brooke Noel Moore and Kenneth Bruder, the authors use an example of two beautiful objects to help explain Plato’s Theory of Forms. In the example, a beautiful statue and a beautiful house are used and it is expressed that they both have something in common, beauty. Moore and Bruder state that beauty is a type of form a...