The papers i cited are simply more evidence that much of reasoning is
sub-conscious. My background in the study of memory, attention,
perception, and decision making coupled with my work with the developers of
neural networks (also called connectionist networks) plus my studies of
neuroscience suggest that human thought is probably done by massively
parallel, sub-symbolic neuronal connections that find the best fit (energy
minimization state) among the weighted networks of information represented
in neuronal circuits, dendritic connections, and hormonal (and therefore
emotional) systems. These operate by a different kind of logic than is
usually assumed to govern the rational level of reasoning which is done
more slowly through conscious processes.
According to this model, the subconscious is the more powerful
thought-making apparatus, and it works best with huge amounts of experience
that establish the underlying networks.
So "abstracting a universal rationality from the practice of reasoning" is
a fine exercise for philosophers, but it does not properly capture human
thought, reasoning, or decision making.
The emphasis on rational, logical thinking is all very well for the design
and construction of physical objects (e.g., a bridge), but is inappropriate
for modeling human behavior -- or designing objects, processes, and systems
that are partially controlled by or that have massive interaction with
people. Engineers, for example, often err in thinking that people are too
logical, or at least, that they ought to be. Logic is an artificial mode of
thought invented by philosophers and mathematicians and it is not very
relevant to how people perform.
The views of the cognitive science modeling community that I inhabit can
readily be seen as sophisticated models of the more common view of
non-specialists in the power of subconscious mechanisms (often,
erroneously, labelled "intuitive"). Or you could say the common views are
simplifications of the modern approach to this topic.
Sigh: I fear this will open up yet another philosophical debate among
people with different world views. Alas, different world views are
paradigms that do not get changed through debate, so the debates get longer
and longer, yet convince no one. In science different paradigms come and
go but usually lasting decades before they get replaced. I've never seen a
paradigm rejected through argumentation. It usually takes massive evidence
and then,most importantly, for the believers in the older paradigm to die
(usually through natural causes).
As one of my mentors once said (Prof.S.S. Stevens of Harvard), if you want
to have people accept your views, you must live longer than your opponents.
He was extremely successful at this for awhile, but then, alas, he too
succombed and is now dead.
Don
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Klaus Krippendorff <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> since you talk or introduce the issue of reasoning i am with you at least
> half way. offering reasons for what was done or is proposed to be done is
> common and necessary whenever other people have tone on board. reasoning is
> situation specific, geared to particular addressees, and has to do with
> something of concern to speakers and listeners.
>
> this is miles apart from abstracting and objectifying a universal
> rationality from the practice of reasoning - as if there would be one
> correct way for all - which I was reacting to
>
Don Norman
Nielsen Norman Group, IDEO Fellow
[log in to unmask] www.jnd.org http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
Book: "Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded<http://amzn.to/ZOMyys>"
(DOET2).
Course: Udacity On-Line course based on
DOET2<https://www.udacity.com/course/design101>
(free).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|