Some quick embedded comments & questions below.

On 3 April 2011 14:00, Andy Polaine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> [...]
>
> It appeared clear that, for Atkins, anything that wasn't possible to
> analyse through the scientific method was simply nonsense, emotion and
> whimsy. On that view (as they discuss in the programme:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zdh3s ) looking at the cadaver of a
> loved one is just looking at a pile of atoms. Anyone who has stood by the
> body of a loved one who has died knows that's not what it feels like. While
> you might be able to scan my brain and tell me that the feelings I'm feeling
> are just neural patterns and a combination of electricity and chemistry,
> it's the science of it, not the feeling, that becomes unimportant in that
> moment. Ree argues, correctly in my view, that there are more than two
> choices between "possible to analyse with the scientific method and thus
> important" and "nonsense". The main concern is that it's a tautological
> argument. If the scientific method only allows you to measure certain things
> in a certain way, then of course some things fall outside that method. To
> then argue that the things that fall outside that method are not worth
> measuring is no argument at all.
>

I read this as suggesting that you think it is impossible that we will
someday be able to, using only science, connect chemical and neuronal
interactions directly to the actual feelings/emotions that we experience.
 Is that right?


> [...]
>
> > Johnson-Laird has argued contradictorily that, in the context of
> generative and creative problem solving, the insight is developed not in a
> "flash" at all. Instead, a four step process leads to an insight, which only
> seems to appear instantly:
> >
> > The current problem solving strategy fails to yield a solution, given the
> existing constraints.
> >
> > There is a tacit consideration of the new constraints in the strategy.
> >
> > The constraints are relaxed (or changed) in a new way, thus broadening
> the problem space and allowing for further consideration.
> >
> > Many changes in constraints lead nowhere, but, with perseverance, a
> change may be made that leads at once to a solution of the problem.
>
> The reference to this is here: Philip Johnson-Laird, "The Shape of
> Problems." in The Shape of Reason: Essays in Honour of Paolo Legrenzi, by V
> Girotto, edited by V Girotto, 3—26. (Psychology Press, 2005).
>

Does Johnson-Laird know of the work of Sawyer, who suggests that our
apparent flashes of inspiration occur only because we are not conscious of
the work our brain is doing to solve the problem?

[...]
>
> I think it's important to reiterate a point I mailed you about off this
> list too. Design does affect others, it always has and sometimes in deadly
> ways. There a plenty of examples of design flaws and design failures that
> have been deadly and there are still plenty of situations (think: cars,
> planes, emergency systems, nuclear reactors, weapons systems, traffic
> signage, medication information, for starters...) where design has a life or
> death role to play.
>
> Perhaps the issue to tackle here is that design works in across a spectrum
> from the throwaway and frivolous right through to the very serious. I
> imagine there's not a lot of frivolity in international peace, development
> and security, so your starting at a particular point on this spectrum and
> looking down towards the frivolous end.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>

Indeed, engineering designers are particularly interested in those
life-or-death situations.

Cheers.
Fil

-- 
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/