Narrow Results

We present algorithmic procedures for generating systematically ideas and solutions to problems which are perceived as creative.

Our method consists of identifying and characterizing the most creative ideas among a vast pool. We show that they fall within a few large classes (archetypes) which share the same conceptual structure (Macros). We prescribe well defined abstract algorithms which can act deterministically on arbitrary given objects. Each algorithm generates ideas with the same conceptual structure characteristic to one of the Macros. The resulting new ideas turn out to be perceived as highly creative.

We support our claims by experiments in which senior advertising professionals graded advertisement ideas produced by our method according to their creativity. The marks (grade 4.6±0.2 on a 1–7 scale) obtained by laymen applying our algorithms (after being instructed for only two hours) were significantly better than the marks obtained by advertising professionals using standard methods (grade 3.6±0.2)).

The method, which is currently taught in USA, Europe, and Israel and used by advertising agencies in Britain and Israel has received formal international recognition.

This article is a critical analysis of Michael Cysouw's comment "Linear Order as a Predictor of Word Order Regularities."

Path length calculation is a frequent requirement in studies related to graph theoretic problems such as genetics. Standard method to calculate average path length (APL) of a graph requires traversing all nodes in the graph repeatedly, which is computationally expensive for graphs containing large number of nodes. We propose a novel method to calculate APL for graphs commonly required in the studies of genetics. The proposed method is computationally less expensive and less time-consuming compared to standard method.

How to distinguish genuine science from pseudo science, and how to establish the hierarchical relationships between scientific disciplines. Ever since the 1930-ies, these two questions have given cause for passionate debate but without yielding any consensus on the answers. In this contribution I will outline the standpoints of the principal participants of this debate, as well as the most relevant points of criticism of each of the positions. I will then try to show how this criticism should reveal the fruitless nature of our attempts at formulating criteria to demarcate the scientific terrain and delineate its hierarchy, and how instead we should allow for a concept of science that is more suited to our endeavours to acquire knowledge of the world and of ourselves than through any such demarcation or stratification.

Modern science has been thoroughly influenced by the centuries-old Simplicity Principle, also known as Ockham’s Razor. This principle is usually formulated as “entities must not be multiplied without necessity”. The main problem with this formulation is that the necessity or redundancy of an entity (e.g. a concept, hypothesis, law, rule, an explanatory element) cannot always be compellingly demonstrated. This means that, certainly within an empiristic, positivistic or materialistic worldview, the use of Ockham’s Razor easily tends towards unjustified reductionism. However, ontologically or epistemologically, the Simplicity Principle can no longer be justified. The Simplicity Principle does not provide a sufficient argument to reject “entities” as irrelevant or superfluous. Moreover, a reductionistic conception of science cannot contribute to tackling issues concerning ultimate values, meanings of life, metaphysics, aesthetics, religion and several aspects of practical life, such as counselling, morals, politics and jurisdiction. Therefore, this article proposes an alternative principle that I have called the Chatton–Ockham Strategy, which is an integration of Chatton’s anti-Razor and Ockham’s Razor and deals with the complexity–simplicity polarity.

The inherent micro-structure (agent-agent/system) of human organizations has been introduced in Chapters 2 and 3. Fundamentally, human organizations are composite complex adaptive systems with human beings as interacting agents (each an intrinsic complex adaptive system). This chapter further analyzes the basic conceptual foundation of the multi-layer structure, including advantages of the intelligent biotic macro-structure (with inherent features similar to that of an intelligent biological being — a structural reform), and its unique and more integrative complex adaptive dynamic in intelligent human organizations (towards iCAD). The necessity of nurturing an intelligent biotic macro-structure with vital characteristics that better synchronize and enhance sophisticated information/knowledge-related activities is highly beneficial — achieving a higher structural capacity. Thus, the attributes, functions and higher structural capacity of the more intelligent biotic macro-structure can reinforced the competitiveness of any categories of human organizations extensively.

In this respect, connecting and engaging of intelligence/consciousness sources (individual and collective), organizing around intelligence, intelligence/ consciousness management, and the intelligent biotic macrostructure are mutually enhancing (towards higher coherency). Apparently, being intelligence/consciousness-centric is a beneficial and critical activator (strategic foundation) of the intelligence paradigmatic shift. In the present context, the roles and integration of intelligence, information and knowledge, as well as nurturing a ‘common’ language and elevating coherency in human organizations (with respect to the macro-structure and micro-structure, as well as their higher collectiveness — collectiveness capacity) must be more deeply scrutinized and utilized. The presence and significance of the individual intelligence enhancer encompassing three entities namely, intelligence, knowledge, and theory in the human thinking systems, and the necessity of nurturing a similar and effective intelligence enhancer at organizational level are analyzed. Subsequently, the supporting roles and contributions of artificial intelligence systems are also examined.

In between the macro-structure and micro-structure are two meso-structures. In the intelligent organization theory, the complexity meso-structure encompasses spaces of complexity and punctuation points. In this respect, complexity is a highly significant focal point, and the exploitation of co-existence of order and complexity is a new necessity (complexity-centricity). Next, the network meso-structure encompassing complex network (network of networks) is also an inherent structure and dynamic in all human organizations. This meso-structure is briefly introduced, and will be more deeply analyzed with respect to governance (network-centricity, network governance).

Hence, it is crucial to lead and manage human organizations with a strategic approach that integrates the above multi-layer structure/ dynamic at all time so that a higher structural capacity, collectiveness capacity, adaptive capacity, self-organizing capacity, and emergence-intelligence capacity can be nurtured. In the current highly competitive context, possessing these positive capabilities to elevate coherency and synergetic characteristics (including social consensus and the construal aspect) and dynamic is also highly crucial — a key focus of the complexity-intelligence strategy (towards achieving higher organizational mental cohesion). Hence, the significance and impact of nurturing intelligent human organizations with the complexity-intelligence-centric and network-centric approach that leads to the emergent of smarter evolvers and emergent strategists must be better understood and adopted. (The conceptual foundation on structural-dynamic coherency and synergy in intelligent human organizations developed in this chapter will be more deeply reviewed and exploited in later chapters.)

In the past great philosophical systems looked for a theory of everything in which the whole reality was considered as a Maxi-Being in each system in a specific way. Nowadays natural sciences try to construct a modern scientific theory embracing the whole realm of reality. In the first part of this paper there will be presented the Natural Maxi-All-in-Being that is becoming the Absolute of the Modern Official Science in its scientific General Theory of Everything (Maxi-theory) In such a framework, in the second part, there will be examined the conceptual model called pansomatopsychism, according to which, the cosmic stuff of our universe (and perhaps of many other possible universes) has two inseparable dialectic aspects: outer somatic and inner psychic. It will be examined in which conditions these two modalities of existence are only potential, purely virtual and in which they become actual. The opinion of several scientists especially physicists according to which already the elementary particles have their rudimentary inner psychic aspect will be presented as well. The part played in pansomatopsychizm by the causations called bottom-up and top-down will be also studied. It will be indicated how in the evolutionary processes the causation bottom-up plays its primary and fundamental part and how when consciousness appears the causation top-down realize its governing activity.

Neurobiological naturalism, an extension of John Searle's concept of biological naturalism, says primary (sensory) consciousness is a scientifically tractable problem based on natural laws although brains that possess consciousness display certain advanced neurobiological system-features. These features are complex, fast, hierarchical, system-wide, internal, and often topographically organized neuron-neuron interactions. We lay out the neurophilosophical problem of the ontological irreducibility of the subjective to the objective, describe the general and special neurobiological features of the conscious neural hierarchies in vertebrates, and then bring in evolutionary considerations to show how consciousness could have evolved in the first vertebrates. Our combined neurobiological, neuroevolutionary and neurophilosophical approach offers a solution to the hard problem of how and why physical brains can cause experiences and why consciousness and subjectivity are neurontologically irreducible.