Developing the structure, the 1st user test, concept of the demonstration

First step was to create a main core of the project, a logical puzzle of a crime story that could be solved by calculations. The story was tested on hogeschool and university students and adjusted several times until we have reached the goal. The goal is that the puzzle should not be too obvious but still students on would make a good decision on who is the murderer. 

When we reached this point we have created additional evidences. These should not have any influence on the choice of the solution but just to confuse the participants.

In the beginning of the installation, the core of the project would be given to participants and they would need to decide who is the killer. After that the given information would grove and it would be harder to chose the right suspect. 

During the installation, the instruction would be given by an audio guide from the wireless headphones and the choices would need to be made twice (in the beginning, after the core information is given) and in the end (when there should be the state of information overload) of who from 2 suspects is the killer (by a chosen device, that is not decided on yet). 

The evidence will be given by a phone recording of one of the suspect, photos of the crime scene, video recordings of the witnesses, personal belongings, autopsy, testament, alibis of suspects.

The participants would need to calculate and would need a note book, in the end of audio guide and after the final choice, they would be asked to stick their notes on the wall. After 2 weeks there should be a nice collection of information. 

From the statement to the installation theme

The process of selecting statement was quite complicated phase. From the feedback of our teachers and teachers from the Hogeschool in Den Haag we have been said, that the final statement would be a challenge to demonstrate. We analyzed the pros and cons and went for the challenge.

Statement is set and we agreed on the way of demonstrating it. After a brainstorm we concluded that for us the interesting way of presenting it is 'the proof of concept by experience'. The users would test on themselves if the statement works. 

We discusses that the best theme would be "a detective office". The installation invites the participant to find a solution to a difficult murder case through interacting with several forms of evidence and media. Eventually the participant will find that more evidence does not necessarily account for a better decision regarding the solution of the case. 

The final statement

The final statement that we selected is "The less information you have, the more accurate your decision is". 

We are pointing on the 'information overload', that can be caused by too much information and further troubles with choosing the relevant and useful. With the invention of the internet and mobile computing, the amount of information a human person is exposed to has never been greater. Every day we are faced with the need to keep up with our email and to stay updated on news from all around the world. Furthermore, gathering information on any topic is as easy as entering some keywords in a search engine. If there is any truth in the saying ‘knowledge is power’, mankind has never been more powerful. However, not everyone has this optimistic view on this astronomical amount of information. Recent studies indicate that when the amount of information a person is exposed to increases, the quality of his decision can be severely decreased due to the limitation of human capability for processing information. This phenomenon is often described as ‘information overload’.

Less you know, the better you decide (inspired by Socrates's perspective)

When one starts an activity (for example research) and look at it with a clear mind (as a black page), it avoids misinterpretations and oversimplified solutions. One's personality, prejudices, biases, intuition (all aspects shaping us introspectively and extrospectively) influence understanding of the world around us. Confirming that we know nothing offer view on the world without borders of our perception and judgment that lead to better decisions. Because then one sees every situation as unique in the constantly changing world.

Socrates paradox

     "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."
socrates 

The phrase "I know that I know nothing" or "I know one thing: that I know nothing"  sometimes called the Socratic paradox, is a well-known saying that is derived from Plato's account of the Greek Philosopher Socrates. This saying is also connected and/or conflated with the answer Socrates is said to have received from Pythia,  the oracle of Delphi, in answer to the question "who is the wisest man in Greece?".




The story behind socrates wisdom

We know one thing and that is that we know nothing! I think that's the story behind the quote from Socrates. sometimes the less you know the better. 
The fact that Socrates at one hand believes that he knows something  while not knowing [anything] at the other hand he says: do not believe [that I know anything]. The impreciseness of the paraphrase of this as I know that I know nothing stems from the fact that the socrates is not saying that he does not know anything but means instead that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty but can feel confident about certain things! in order to prove this Chaerephon , a friend of Socrates asked  Pythia,  "Is anyone wiser than Socrates?". The answer was: "No human is wiser". Socrates tried to find someone who 

Socrates tried to find someone who is wiser than himself, since he denied any knowledge, among politicians, poets, and craftsmen. It appeared that politicians claimed wisdom without knowledge; poets could touch people with their words, but did not know their meaning; and craftsmen could claim knowledge only in specific and narrow fields. The interpretation of Oracle's answer might be Socrates' awareness of his own ignorance.

Awareness 

For me, this leads to awareness of something! we can say with certainty that we do know nothing, because we are aware of our not knowing. But we can not say that we do know something! This may have to do with how much knowledge we have, time, age, and culture. Our knowledge about something can change in time, but also the problems and moments we face everyday. We can explore more about "something", but time itself plays a major role in our way of understanding and to discovering the perfect solution for a certain problem! The key to all this, is to become aware of the emptiness! with this i mean our thoughts as a empty place which is aware of not knowing and to observe for new and genuine possibilities.

In the emptiness of our thoughts, we are able to open our selves for more ideas, and to explore new and genuine possibilities/solutions. 

Finally, as human beings we will never have such knowledge to understand everything and to find a solution for all our existing problems. Beside this, it's hard to prove if everything that happens in our environment is REAL!  What if everything that is happening, is just our imagination or a dream? will be still be able to find prove of our existing? 

 This phenomenon could be explored by focusing on the Brain in a vat phenomenon. 

In philosophy is brain in a vat a thought experiment to think about reality, knowledge, truth and consciousness. The idea, which is also widely used in science fiction, is that a scientist removes someone's brains from the body, explains in a vat of liquid and connect the neurons of the brains on a very powerful computer. Then the computer will simulate the Virtual reality: the brain receives the signals such as sound and visuals from the computer, and instead of sending the signals to the muscles the brain retunes it back to the computer to execute an action. The brains would have the same experience as if they were in a physical body, but this is now supplied by a computer instead of a real environment. 
The brains in a vat experiment can be used as an argument for philosophical skepticism and solipsism. 


A simple version of this argument goes at this: Since the brains receive and react on the same signals and impulses as if they were in a normal head and since these signals are the only way to interact with the environment, it is not possible to ( viewed from the brains) determine whether the brains is in a vat or located in a human head. In the first case u could say that most of human thoughts are True, such as walking and eating. The second case disprove this argument by saying that this in Not True! Since according to this argument, we are not able to  know whether the brains are in a vat,we can not know if the thoughts are false.  And since, in principle, it is impossible to exclude that the brains are in a vat, we can never have good reasoning to think what we think, because we don't know whether something what we think is True. 



bron: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/socrates125872.html#GjCesqALxFPJAhGs.99

We can not call solution a solution

To refer to one of our observation from the 7th meeting. About time aspect in problem solving. There is a thought about it that disprove the meaning or solution.
During problem solving process, we try to understand the situation adn find an optimal solution. The time does work against us. Our understanding or a problem and solutions we think would work for current problems are outdated due to constantly changing world, we can not claim they are solutions anymore.

Brain in a vat

In philosophy, the brain in a vat is an element used in a variety of thought experiments intended to draw out certain features of our ideas of knowledge, reality, truth, mind, and meaning. It is based on an idea, common to many science fiction stories, that amad scientist, machine, or other entity might remove a person's brain from the body, suspend it in a vat of life-sustaining liquid, and connect its neurons by wires to a supercomputer which would provide it with electrical impulses identical to those the brain normally receives. According to such stories, the computer would then be simulating reality (including appropriate responses to the brain's own output) and the person with the "disembodied" brain would continue to have perfectly normal conscious experiences without these being related to objects or events in the real world.

The simplest use of brain-in-a-vat scenarios is as an argument for philosophical skepticism and solipsism. A simple version of this runs as follows: Since the brain in a vat gives and receives exactly the same impulses as it would if it were in a skull, and since these are its only way of interacting with its environment, then it is not possible to tell, from the perspective of that brain, whether it is in a skull or a vat. Yet in the first case most of the person's beliefs may be true (if they believe, say, that they are walking down the street, or eating ice-cream); in the latter case their beliefs are false. Since the argument says one cannot know whether one is a brain in a vat, then one cannot know whether most of one's beliefs might be completely false. Since, in principle, it is impossible to rule out oneself being a brain in a vat, there cannot be good grounds for believing any of the things one believes; a skeptical argument would contend that one certainly cannot know them, raising issues with the definition of knowledge.

However, if one accepts a utilitarian or some logical positivist ethical philosophy, then one should behave as though the external world is real. If one believes the external world is not real, it follows that other humans and beings do not exist, and therefore cannot be helped or harmed by one's actions. Thus, if one behaves as though the world is real and it is not, one has not seriously harmed one's own happiness (particularly because cause and effect may or may not operate the way one believes) or at least has only made one's own existence miserable. However, if one behaves as though the world is not real and it is, one's totally selfish decisions can cause serious harm to the happiness of large numbers of people. Therefore, for the cost-benefit analysis of belief in the existence of the external world to support disbelief, one must estimate the probability that the world does not exist as very high. Though the world does not appear wholly logical or consistent, enough of it is logical and consistent to suggest that there is a substantial probability that I am (or the reader, assuming he exists, is) part of a real universe. So, the cost-benefit analysis favors belief in the external world's existence.

The brain in a vat is a contemporary version of the argument given in Hindu Maya illusion, Plato's Allegory of the Cave, Zhuangzi's "Zhuangzi dreamed he was a butterfly", and theevil demon in René Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

7th meeting: Working towards a statement

Till now, our meetings consisted mostly out of mapping all the different aspects that were related to the concepts of Solution, as well as the main theme surrounding the semester assignment: the concept of 'Key'. This first stage has proved quite fruitful as we have several fields which were quite related, and interested us as well. Furthermore, the first stage of our research resulted in two most interesting field trips to research some of the aspects of the concepts.

As the middle of november draws near, we are more and more working towards a statement. a statement which will be the main 'message' that we will have to translate in our final project.  Where the first stage of our project revolved mostly around 'broadening our horizon' we are now expected to take one field which we deem to be an interested field for a statement. Furthermore,  this field should prove to be useful for making a 'compelling' statement. A statement which will engage our future public and challenges them to think about the matter. This transition defines the first change in the way we will have to work. For us this was begging the question: "How do you make a statement which is compelling, interesting and clear at the same time? Should the statement be true? Or should it be creative or new?

Luckily, some of our questions were answered by attending the first 'semester project meeting'. In this meeting all the groups were invited to present their findings till now. Furthermore, it was meant as a collaborative effort were the presenters could use the opportunity to ask the other groups for suggestions or remarks. Also, with most of the coaches present, most of the unclearity surrounding the project vanished.

So what did we learn from the meeting? Maarten remarked one of the most important pitfalls. This pitfall is that most groups tend to go very broad and define a statement based on all the interesting fields or topics that they had found. Second, a statement doesn't need to be true. Even more, the group does not have to support the statement even. What is important is that the statement should stir something. After the meeting we had our second meeting with our coach. This meeting proved to be even more enlightening as Peter provides us with some guidelines for coming up with a statement.

The most important guideline: "Do some small observations for each of the fields you found, and try to relate this observation to the other fields"

At our 7th meeting we tried this method for some of the fields we had found and came up with some first observations. Some of the most interesting observations for now were:

• As the environment plays a huge role on our thought processes, coming up with a solution is sometimes not even in our hands. Our visit of the LEF future century was the main inspiration for this observation. As the facilitators at the LEF future center were the one guiding the participants towards a solution, the solution was actually because of the facilitators and not of the participants.
• A solution lies somewhere between  'lack of control' and 'having control'. Problem solving can be seen as taking control of a situation. However, we are mostly guided by our intuitions and biases. Almost always,  a proper solution is between taking certain methods to try to control a problem and base your solution on intuition or previous experiences.
• This next observation is related to the previous one: Sometimes the less you know, the better. Research has found that experts are better of having less information or data than a lot, since in these cases intuition provides a higher chance of making an accurate decision.
• Solutions of the past are somethings actually what causes problems in the now. So are solutions we provide now for the better in the long term? For example, in the past the decision for the combustion engine, was a proper solution for a problem. It allowed people to cross distance in a cheap and efficiënt matter. Since we now are challenged by climate change, the combustion engine has become a problem in itself.
• What makes a chemical solution a solution, is that the two substances are there in a certain amount which causes them to 'balance out' so to speak. So can we understand a solution as stability?
• Inpsired by the evolution theory, you could understand a solution not as something fitting or perfect but as something optimal. In evolution the state of things are an optimal state of being, not necessarily the ideal or perfect state.  

The next step will be to take one of the observation and devise a statement out of it.

The solutions of past cause problems in present, present solutions will cause problems in future

Just a small sci-fi reflection on an interesting topic we thought about during the meeting...

The solutions of past cause problems in present, present solution will cause problems in future.
To change this problem-solution situation, imagine a possibility to time travel.
If we as travelers in past would do something in past to prevent from reasons to time travel in the 1st place, then where would we come back to present? What would happen from the time we have made a change? Would our life change? Would we come back to present of one of multiple parallel universe that would start at the time we came to by our time travel?

Black Swans

Black Swans are unexpected and unpredicted events in human history that have a huge impact. Although, after the occurrence of such event, scientists usually conclude: "This was supposed to happen". Even though the time, place of these events are different, the there is a possibility to draw a pattern of their process and analyze them. The understanding of these rare events can explain a lot in our world as well as in our personal lives. 

The interesting for our semester project topic is that there are events in human history that have not been predicted. If we look on history as a complex of decisions, action & reactions, where contribution of one inspires the other, where innovation in one sphere (technological) create possibilities for other (health care), then unpredictable Black Swan events are the key moments that massively shape the future.

Nicholas Taleb claims : The psychological biases make people individually and collectively blind to uncertainty and unaware of the massive role of the rare event in historical affairs.

Link : Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (2010) [2007], The Black Swan: the impact of the highly improbable (2nd ed.), London: Penguin, ISBN 978‐0‐14103459‐1, retrieved 23 May 2012.

Diversity is more stable that homogenity

In order to create a solution, solutes have to spread through solvent effectively to create a homogenous mixture. This way the mixture is stable.

If we apply this to society, maybe we can solve adaptation problems of minorities. If inhabitants would not groups and maintain traditions originating from their culture but would be offered to be part of society as individuals, adaptation of different cultures would be easier, moreover would highlight diversity in opinions, increase of progress, creativity and achieve collaboration.

We can say solution (in chemistry) is the ultimate solution (problem solving) that can be applied to different situations.

Solubility & diversity

• of tastes and spices in cooking
• in nutrition
• as a pollution
• diversity of cultures
• team work and diversity, roles in the team to effective workflow

Evolution vs. Update

Is it possible to adapt technology by use of Big Data to the changing world?
If we understand life as the concept of self-organized structure can we apply this to technology?
The organic is born from inorganic. There is no other matter than physical-chemical. If life is a certain pattern of organization common to all living organisms, how can we describe diversity? Maybe diversity of al living forms just adaptation to the environment.

Can we works with this and make the technology alive by use of big data?

On nature of Questions

Solutions by nature

Biomimicry studies natural models and then use these to solve problems of our time. The core idea is that nature is creative & sustainable by necessity and it can be used as an ecological standard to judge sustainability of our innovation.

Nature offers solutions such as self-cleaning surfaces that do not require detergents, manufacturing processes that use materials that do not leave toxic wastes and use little energy, and antibiotics that do not result in resistant pathogens.

We look on a term solution as a natural choice in evolution and physical and psychological adaptation that evolved among humans and animals. Natural choices solves specific problems especially of survival and reproduction. 

• The solution is not necessary the best one: the natural selection does not produce perfection.

• Fitting functions depends on diversity and heredity. So diversity and heredity are requirements for healthy mutations. 
• Gene mutation as solution
• Adaptation - structural (physical, such as mimicry, camouflage) - behavioral (protection, reproduction)

• As perception of  aesthetics has roots in evolution.
• If pleasant things are based on our ancestors experience, are our decisions result of long processes and our DNA? Does decisions vary in modern ages because they are influenced by technology and computations?

• Decisions naturally depends on feelings o safety, accomplishment, reproduction.

• Shape in nature lead to balance, simplicity and law of minimum.
• Patterns in nature are created because they need less energy - spirals, meanders, explosions are results of limitations in 3d space.
• Natural patterns are never regular, never repeat the same way, anyway there are always natural solutions in the shape of spirals, meanders and explosions.