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.

Water, the universal solvent

Water is called the "universal solvent", because of its ability to dissolve many different compounds from sugars to DNA. This ability makes it ideal medium for living organisms.

Why is water so optimal solvent?

Water has ability to act as dipole. Oxygen is negatively charged while hydrogen positively. These in interaction, for example with salt (oxygen with sodium ions and hydrogen with chlorine ions), result in a situation that sodium chlorine (salt) dissolve into ions that are more stable while surrounded by water.

Consistence of water

Consistence of water, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, can be demonstrated by electrolysis (the decomposition of water molecules with electricity). This releases bubbles of pure oxygen and the pure hydrogen. By measuring the amount of gases, twice as much oxygen is released as hydrogen. The interaction of hydrogen and oxygen is called a polar covalent bond. This means that 2 elements share a pair of electrons and that each atom contributes one of the electrons in the pair. Hydrogen, the 1. element in the Periodic Table, has one electron and can form one covalent bond interaction. In case of water, hydrogens are sharing electrons with oxygen. If hydrogen would share its electron with another hydrogen, there would not be any electron available to interact with oxygen. A polar covalent bond represents a dipole where the hydrogens have a slight positive charge and the oxygen has a slight negative charge.

Ecological perspective

The ability to dissolve in many substances is also the reason why water pollution is pervasive. In water, it is possible to dissolve almost every substance from pesticides, industrial waster, to household byproducts, as soup in water for washing our clothes. There are many technics water purifying, but there require a lot of energy and its difficult to overcome the hydrogen bonds between water molecules. Another technic is distillation, but it leaves the polluting material behind. Without water there is no life on the Earth. Even though water is a simple molecule, it is the most essential chemical component.

Interesting link: http://news.leiden.edu/dossiers/cell/articles/do-cells-contain-more-solutions-than-just-water.html

Soure: http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Va-Z/Water.html

Solution, a chemical mixture

Most of the chemical processes happen is solution. Life is a sum of a series of complex processes occurring in solution. A solution is a homogeneous mixture, so that it has uniform properties and composition.

It consists of solvent, a majority of a solution (for example water), and one or more solutes (for example sugar) that dissolve into solvent. Solutions are random mixtures of atomic, ions, or molecular sizes.

Components never separate spontaneously, even if the density of a solution differs. They distribute themselves in a random manner, but efficiently. Diffusion time duration depends on substances. Diffusion in a liquid is slower that that of gases.

Solutions can be in form of liquid, gas, solid form or its combination. The Atmosphere is, for example, a solution of solvent nitrogen dissolves other gases such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and neon.

We distinguish organic and inorganic solutions. Organic solvent is, for instance, alcohol. Inorganic solvents are commonly used in laboratory, industry or as home chemicals.

Conditions that affect solubility is 

• Pressure

It has an effect mostly on gaseous solutes. For example, when we remove a cap from soda water bottle and dioxide gas leaves a water. At any specified temperature, the extent to which a gas dissolves in a liquid is directly dependent upon the pressure of the gas.

• Temperature

Temperature has an effect, because the solubility of a gas in a liquid solvent decreases with increasing temperature. Most of the time, solubility of solids in liquids increases with an increase in temperature.

• Nature of components

As a example, let's consider a crystal. It consists of regular arrangement of atoms, ions and molecules. The forces that hold crystal together are electrostatic. For a ionic crystal to dissolve in water, the water has to shield the negative and positive charges of ions. The solubility of ions depends on electrostatic forces that hold the crystal together.

Properties of solutions

Pure liquids have properties of their physical properties such as melting point, vapor pressure and osmosis. By adding solute into solution, there characteristics change. The changes observed in there properties varying from the pure solvent to a solution depends upon the number of solute molecules. These properties are called colligative properties.

• Melting/boiling points

Solutions exhibit higher boiling points and lower melting points than the parent solvent. Such as antifreeze solutions for cars.

• Vapor pressure

Vapor pressure of a water is 100%. This magnitude is equal to the atmospheric pressure allowing bubbles of gaseous water to escape from the liquid state. The vapor pressure of a solution is less than that of a solvent. The boiling point of water increases with the addition of salt, because salt has a lower vapor pressure that pure water. The boiling point elevation and the vapor pressure depression are related.

• Osmosis

Osmosis is responsible for the transfer of molecules through cell walls in biological processes. Semis permeable membrane is a material that allows molecules of one kind to pass through the membrane but prevent other ones to pass. Usually membranes permit to pass solvent and prevent solute molecules. It is important process in biology and medicine. So osmosis is something as a selection of specific molecules that can be used and those that should stay, for example to not make the cells dehydrated.

Maybe we can get inspired by nature and solve the water pollution problem by Osmosis. Osmosis can separate solute from solvent without energy input. The main flaw of distillation and purification processes (look at Water, the universal solvent post) is high requirement of energy. Maybe something we can look at. 

Rosetta Stone: an unexpected key to a solution

Sometimes the term solution and key are almost interchangeable. This was definetly the case when the Rosetta Stone was found in 1799. For decades scientists had been searching for a specific solution to their problem: How to understand the mysterious hyroglyphs of the ancient Egyptian culture? The solution, or rather the key to understanding, came in the form of a ancient stele. In this ancient stele, three languages were inscribed in the same sentences. These three languages were: Greek, the Demotic script & the Egyptian language. Since we could already understand the Greek language, it was only a matter of time before the other languages were decrypted.
The Rosetta Stone is therefor to be understood as a key, which ultimately led to a solution. Since it still took time and effort to really decrypt the languages (how would you even know that all the sentences are the same, for example?) the Rosetta Stone is rather good example of  a key for opening up a solution, rather than being the solution itself.

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

What is uniqueness?

During our research we stumbled upon the concept of uniqueness. Since a key is something which mostly fits on one lock, we can regard a key as something as unique to the lock. Moreover, we might regard a solution as something as unique to a problem. We analyse a problem and we on these findings we base and construct an proper solution for the problem. One might say that each problem and solution have a unique relationship between them which distinguishes it from other problems and solutions. This assumption holds especially true for so called 'wicked problems'.

What does this mean for our problem solving capabillities? If there is a unique relationship between an problem and its solution, this might mean that you have to come up with a new solution for every problem. But the ambition of most sciences is that it can give a framework with general rules and methods to solve problems or questions in that given field. The problem might become clear when considering the problem of induction. The problem of induction consists of getting from individual instances of knowledge to general statements of knowledge. Consider this example: If I see one white swan in nature, can I conclude that every swan is white? Probably not, since there might be a chance that there is a swan in the world which is black (I cannot know for sure, at least). So if , in my lifetime, I saw about a thousands white swans, can I conclude that all swans are by definition whtie? No I can't, since there still might be a chance that there exist a swan which is not whtie.
Although it is a bit of a different problem, one could ask if the the same holds for  problems? Is every problem unique and can we therefore never devise general methods to solve problems? If every problem is unique, what value do our problem-solving tools have?

Wikipedia page on the problem of induction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Conditions for Intuitive Expertise

This article reports on an effort to explore the differences between two approaches to intuition and expertise that are often viewed as conflicting: heuristics and biases (HB) and naturalistic decision making (NDM). Starting from the obvious fact that professional intuition is sometimes marvelous and sometimes flawed, the authors attempt to map the boundary conditions that separate true intuitive skill from overconfident and biased impressions. They conclude that evaluating the likely quality of an intuitive judgment requires an assessment of the predictability of the environment in which the judgment is made and of the individual’s opportunity to learn the regularities of that environment. Subjective experience is not a reliable indicator of judgment accuracy.

link to paper Conditions for Intuitive Expertise, by Daniel Kahneman & Gary Klein.

http://www.viablebusinesssolutions.com.au/downloads/2400905/Kahneman,+Klein+-+2009+-+Conditions+for+intuitive+expertise+a+failure+to+disagree.pdf

4rd Meeting: Visiting LEF future center in Utrecht.

4rd Meeting: Visiting LEF future center in Utrecht.

This week’s meeting started with visiting LEF future center at Utrecht. We meet with mr, Robert Verheule ( team manager & senior facilitator at LEF).

What is LEF Future center?

We are all familiar with standard meeting rooms. An ordinary setting with table and couple of chairs where the employer usually sits at the head table and starts the topic of the meeting. Suggest that the arrangement of the environment (meeting room) table, colors of the wall, chairs  or the attitude of people in the room for example, how they talk, sit and even the eye contact effects the outcome of the meeting. This may lead into faster and more concrete results and conflicts can be avoid or solved sooner. Through (scientific)research LEF have shown the various effects of different methods and equipment for example, pictures they use, or the attitude of people can lead to a rapid (final)result.

LEF aims for creating different room concepts during different parts of a decision making or problem solving phase. The core of LEF future center consists of 'scientific knowledge', ' working with people 'and 'technology'. The latter component is particularly for support. Since the opening in 2008 People can step into a new world where fantasy has pore limitations. Advanced facilities like sound and image, movable walls, tantalising interior elements and a 270-degree theater allows to controle the atmosphere to create a new “world” where people are able to think beyond their limits.

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”,  Albert Einstein .

links to a research on behalf of LEF:

Research: BRAIN VALIDATION PHOTO SELECTION

http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/images/Brainvalidation%20Photo%20Selection%20English_tcm174-349569.PDF

Research:  Cognitive sensitivity to visual atmosphere

http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/images/Cognitive%20Sensitivity%20to%20Visual%20Atmosphere_tcm174-313093.pdf

After introduction, mr. Verheule introduce us to different methods and how they lead there workshops at LEF future center. In addition he explained the brain function based on three levels , To understand the brain better, make it  distinguishes three layers: 1:primitive reptile or animal 2:dog 3:man. The most important part of the brain is the core, where  decision making takes place. Furthermore we  discussed  the social behaviour part of the brain  which is most important part in interacting with another. And finally Naturalistic Decision Making or( NDM) driven by recognition decision ( RPD) and heuristic and biases (HB) in decision making. Additionally Mr. Verheule recommend us to read the paper Conditions for Intuitive Expertise, by Daniel Kahneman & Gary Klein.

Part 2 of meeting:

Based on our last weeks meeting with Peter (our coach) we continued brainstorming about a broader aspect of our topics (key and Solution). This weeks brainstorm session led to a broader insights of our topic. Both the connection as separate meanings. In the context of these two aspects we considered key-solution ratio, where we end up brainstorming about  Uniqueness.

This new insights concerned:

·      * Understanding the meaning of Uniqueness, what is uniqueness according to our opinion?

·          No predictability.

In addition we  brainstormed about solution in other states:

·      

        * Understanding a broader aspect of solution.  For example, solution as Experiment, Fuel, energy and plasma.

·     *  Understanding transition of states. When is something called solution. Is vapor still a solution?

·     * Solution as a conductor.

Finally we discussed  other meanings of key, for example a key as an  controller or a button. Or a key can be specific to execute only one task. Furthermore we discussed other terms related to key, for example  within a process a key can refer to a key moment, whereby a key moment is turning point or a climax where (true) solution reveals itself. Or like Rosetta stone the stone functioned as a key to dissolving the Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Heuristics in decision making

For most problems encountered in daily live, certain methods to come to a solution exist. As inspired by the natural sciences, we tend to think that using this methods can give us access to the best and proper solution; a solution which adheres to an objective truth. In science , for example, before making a claim a scientist is expected to do proper research before committing him or herself to this claim. He or she is expected to gather trustful resources, and reference them so that others could look up these sources themselves.
Utilizing certain methods of grounding your decision or judgement. are meant to shield us against wrong judgements and biases. The common practice of adhering to certain methods, is what is in general considered as acting rational.

Although the general idea that everyone is rational to a great extend, research in the field of psychology and behavioral economics have shown that this is not the case. As early in 1947  Herbert A. Simon, a cognitive psychologist, suggested that human judgements were mostly grounded by heuristics which weren't rational by nature. Heuristics can be understood as 'experience-based techniques' for problem solving which do not necessarily lead to the optimal solution for a problem. In the beginning of the 1970s two psychologists, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, demonstrated three of these hereustics as underlying most of our intiutive decisionmaking. For example, when asked how high people regard the chance of them of being in a dramatic accident in the future, most of them will overestimate this chance. This is due to the fact that these events are highly publicised, making them readily available to base a decision or estimate on. This is what Tversky & Kahneman call the Availability heuristic. This heuristic implies that most people base their decision on readily available (and often incomplete) information, without questioning the information or relativating the information in a bigger context.  This research marked the beginning of a whole new field of research that challenged the idea of the idea of human beings as being rational.

Why is this interesting for our topic 'Solution'? Most of the time we regard problems as having a solution , which we have an immediate access to; it is only a matter of utilizing the right methods to get to the solution. However, this research suggest that, more often than not, we are led astray by cognitive biases which actually hinders us from finding the right solution. This conflict between cognitive biases and rationality in problem-solving could be an interesting area for our research.

A link to the paper of Tversky and Kahneman:
http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/teaching/Tversky_Kahneman_1974.pdf

How to cope with complexity?

Several way to reach original solutions 

1. There are often long periods when the person who is about to make an original work

appears to do nothing but take in information, work rather fruitlessly at seemingly trivial

aspects of the problem, or give his attention to unrelated matters. This is known as

'incubation'.

2. The solution to a difficult problem, or the occurrence of an original idea, will often

come all of a sudden (the 'leap of insight') and will take the form of a dramatic change in

the way in which the problem is perceived (a change of 'set'). The effect of this

transformation is often to turn a complicated problem into a simple one.

3. The enemies of originality are mental rigidity, (Broadbent 1966b), and wishful thinking.

These are evident when a person acts either in a far more regular way than the situation

demands or else is incapable of perceiving the external realities that make his ideas

unfeasible.

From these conclusions about creative thinking, and from the preceding remarks about

the effect of drawings, we can infer that the main principle in dealing with complicated

problems is to transform them into simple ones.