Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:34:37.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A complexity theory of design intentionality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Theodore Zamenopoulos
Theodore Zamenopoulos*
Affiliation:
Department of Design, Development, Environment and Materials, Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
*
Reprint requests to: Theodore Zamenopoulos, Department of Design, Development, Environment and Materials, Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK. E-mail: t.zamenopoulos@open.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The subject of this paper is design intentionality. The paper is concerned with the property of the mind to hold intentional states (its capacity to represent or reflect existing and nonexisting realities) and with the way that these mental states are constructed during design tasks. The aim is to develop a mathematical theory of design intentionality, capturing the structures and processes that characterize an intentional system with the mental ability to address design tasks. The philosophical notion of intentionality is approached methodologically from a complexity theoretic perspective. More specifically, the focus is placed on the mathematical characterization of the organizational complexity of intentional states and the type of phase transitions that occur on the mental states of an intentional system during design tasks. The paper uses category theory in order to build a framework that is able to mathematically capture the meaning of these notions.

Keywords

Category TheoryComplexityDesign IntentionalityPhilosophy of MindSemantics
Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 63 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Akin, Ö. (1986). Psychology of Architectural Design. London: Pion Limited.Google Scholar
Alexiou, A. (2007). Understanding multi-agent design as coordination. PhD Thesis. University of London, University College London.Google Scholar
Alexiou, K., & Zamenopoulos, T. (2008). Design as a social process: a complex systems perspective. Futures 40(6), 586–595.Google Scholar
Alexiou, K., Zamenopoulos, T., Johnson, J.H., & Gilbert, S.J. (2009). Exploring the neurological basis of design cognition using brain imaging: some preliminary results. Design Studies 30(6), 623–647.Google Scholar
Archer, B.L. (1965). Systematic methods for designers. In Developments in Design Methodology (Cross, N., Ed.), pp. 57–82. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Atlan, H. (1974). On a formal definition of organization. Journal of Theoretical Biology 45(2), 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlan, H. (1998). Intentional self-organization. Emergence and reduction: towards a physical theory of intentionality. Thesis Eleven 52(1), 5–34.Google Scholar
Badii, R., & Politi, A. (1997). Complexity: Hierarchical Structures and Scaling in Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barr, M., & Wells, C. (1985). Toposes, Triples and Theories. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Barr, M., & Wells, C. (1990). Category Theory for Computing Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. (1977). A Handbook of Mathematical Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beaney, M. (Ed.). (1997). The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bennett, C.H. (1985). Dissipation, information, computational complexity and the definition of organization. In Emerging Syntheses in Science (Pines, D., Ed.), pp. 215–233. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Boccara, N. (2004). Modeling Complex Systems. New York: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Brazier, F.M.T., Moshkina, L.V., & Wijngaards, N.J.E. (2001). Knowledge level model of an individual designer as an agent in collaborative distributed design. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 15(5), 137–152.Google Scholar
Brentano, F. (1995). Psychology From an Empirical Standpoint. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cariani, P. (1991). Emergence and artificial life. In Artificial Life II (Langton, C., Taylor, C., Farmer, J.D., & Rasmussen, S., Eds.), pp. 775–797. Redwood City, CA: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Casti, J.L. (1992). Reality Rules: Picturing the World in Mathematics—The Fundamentals, Vol. 1. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chaitin, G.J. (1966). On the length of programs for computing finite binary sequences. Journal of the Association of Computing Machinery 13, 547–569.Google Scholar
Chaitin, G.J. (1997). The Limits of Mathematics: A Course on Information Theory and Limits of Formal Reasoning. Singapore: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D.J. (2002). Foundations. In Philosophy of Mind. Classical and Contemporary Readings (Chalmers, D.J., Ed.), pp. 1–9. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coyne, R.D. (1988). Logic Models of Design. London, Pitman.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1970). Mental events. In Experience and Theory (Foster, L., & Swanson, J.W., Eds.), pp. 79–101. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Davis, S., & Gillon, B. (Eds.). (2004). Semantics: a Reader. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D.C. (1987). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies 22(5), 425–437.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ellerman, D.P. (1988). Category theory and concrete universals. Erkenntnis 28(3), 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, G.W., & Newell, A. (1969). GPS: A Case Study in Generality and Problem Solving. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. (1975). The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. (1987). Psychosemantics. The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. (1995). Fodor, Jerry A. In A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind (Guttenplan, S., Ed.). New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Freeman, W.J., & Skarda, C.A. (1990). Representations: who needs them. In Brain Organization and Memory: Cells, Systems and Circuits (Mcgaugh, J.L., Weinberger, N.M., & Lynch, G., Eds.), pp. 375–380. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (2004). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. (1998). Towards a model of designing which includes its situatedness. In Universal Design Theory (Grabowski, H., Rude, S., & Grein, G., Eds.), pp. 47–56. Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S.J., Zamenopoulos, T., Alexiou, A., & Johnson, J.H. (2010). Involvement of right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in ill-structured design cognition: an fMRI study. Brain Research 1312(2), 79–88.Google Scholar
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goel, V., & Grafman, J. (2000). Role of the right prefrontal cortex in ill-structured planning. Cognitive Neuropsychology 17(5), 415–436.Google Scholar
Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1989). Motivating the notion of generic design within information processing theory: the design problem space. AI Magazine 10(1), 19–36.Google Scholar
Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science 16(3), 395–429.Google Scholar
Goguen, J.A. (1973). Realization is universal. Mathematical System Theory 6, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldblatt, R. (1984). Topoi. The Categorical Analysis of Logic. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Goldblatt, R. (2006). Mathematical modal logic: a view of its evolution. In Handbook of the History of Logic (Gabbay, D., & Woods, J., Eds.), Vol. 6. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review 66(3), 377–388.Google Scholar
Haken, H. (1983). Advanced Synergetics: Instability Hierarchies of Self-Organizing Systems and Devices. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Harder, P. (1996). Functional Semantics: A Theory of Meaning, Structure and Tense in English. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (1989). Some philosophical issues in cognitive science: qualia, intentionality, and the mind–body problem. In Foundations of Cognitive Science (Posner, M.I., Ed.), pp. 831–848. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (1987). Category induction and representation. In Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition (Harnad, S., Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42, 335–346.Google Scholar
Hintikka, K.J.J. (1961). Modality and quantification. Theoria 27, 119–128.Google Scholar
Ho, Y.-S. (1982). The planning process: a formal model. Environment and Planning B 9(4), 377–386.Google Scholar
Horgan, T. (1993). From supervenience to superdupervenience. Meeting the demands of a material world. Mind 102(408), 555–586.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1976). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kainen, P.C. (1971). Weak adjoint functors. Mathematische Zeitschrift 122(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1992). Multiple realization and the metaphysics of reduction. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Kirsh, D. (1996). Adapting the environment instead of oneself. Adaptive Behavior 4(3/4), 415–452.Google Scholar
Kolmogorov, A. (1965). Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information. Problems of Information Transmission 1(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Kripke, S.A. (1963). Semantical considerations on modal logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica 16, 83–94.Google Scholar
Lambek, J., & Scott, P.J. (1986). Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langton, C. (1990). Computation at the edge of chaos: phase transitions and emergent computation. Physica D 42(1–3), 12–37.Google Scholar
Lawrere, F.W., & Schanuel, S.H. (1997). Conceptual Mathematics: a First Introduction to Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1998). Categories for the Working Mathematician. New York: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Maher, M.L., Poon, J., & Boulanger, S. (1996). Formalizing design exploration as co-evolution. Advances in Formal Design Methods for CAD. Proc. IFIP WG5.2 Workshop on Formal Design Methods for Computer-Aided Design (Gero, J.S., & Sudweeks, F., Eds.). London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Maranda, J.M. (1964). Injective structures. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 110, 98–135.Google Scholar
March, M.L. (Ed.). (1976). The logic of design and the question of value. In The Architecture of Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B.P. (1992). The rise and fall of British emergentism. In Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism (Beckermann, A., Flohr, H., & Kim, J., Eds.), pp. 49–93. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B.P. (1997). Emergence and supervenience. Intellectica 25(1), 25–43.Google Scholar
Millikan, R.G. (2004). Varieties of Meaning. The 2002 Jean Nicod Lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W.J. (1990). The Logic of Architecture: Design, Computation and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (1967). On symmetry breaking instabilities in dissipative systems. Journal of Chemical Physics 46(9), 3542–3550.Google Scholar
Place, U.T. (1956). Is consciousness a brain process? British Journal of Psychology 47, 44–50.Google Scholar
Portugali, J., & Casakin, H. (2002). SIRN (Synergetic Inter-Representation Network): an approach to design. In Common Ground: Design Research Society International Conference (Durling, D., & Shackleton, J., Eds.). Staffordshire: Staffordshire University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1973). Psychological predicates. In Art, Mind and Religion (Capitan, W.H., & Merrill, D.D., Eds.), pp. 37–48. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1984). Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roozenburg, N.F.M. (1993). On the pattern of reasoning in innovative design. Design Studies 14(1), 4–18.Google Scholar
Rosen, R. (1991). Life Itself. A Comprenhensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson and Co.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schuster, H.G. (2001). Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction. Saarbrücken: Scator Verlag.Google Scholar
Searle, J.R. (1983). Intentionality. An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seely, R.A.G. (1979). Weak adjointness in proof theory. Proc. Research Symp. on Applications of Sheaf Theory to Logic, Algebra, and Analysis. Berlin: Springer/Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence 4(4), 181–201.Google Scholar
Smart, J.J.C. (1959). Sensations and brain processes. Philosophical Review 68, 141–156.Google Scholar
Smithers, T. (1996). On knowledge level theories of design process. In Artificial Intelligence in Design (Gero, J.S., & Sudweeks, F., Eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Smithers, T. (1998). Towards a knowledge level theory of design process. In Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘98 (Gero, J.S., & Sudweeks, F., Eds.), pp. 3–22. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Smithers, T. (2002). Synthesis in design. In Artificial Intelligence in Design (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 3–24. Cambridge: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, A., & Coyne, R. (2006). Interpretation in Architecture: Design as a Way of Thinking. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Steadman, J.P. (1979). The Evolution of Designs: Biological Analogy in Architecture and the Applied Arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stiny, G. (1981). A note on the description of designs. Environment and Planning B 8(3), 257–267.Google Scholar
Stiny, G. (2006). Shape: talking about seeing and doing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stiny, G. & March, L. (1981). Design machines. Environment and Planning B 8(3), 245–255.Google Scholar
Takeda, H., Veerkamp, P., Tomiyama, T., & Yoshikawa, H. (1990). Modeling design process. AI Magazine 11(4), 37–48.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1956). Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. New York: Oxford at the Charendon Press.Google Scholar
Van Gelder, T., & Port, R.F. (1995). It's about time: an overview of the dynamical approach to cognition. In Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition (Port, R.F., & Van Gelder, T., Eds.), pp. 1–43. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vartanian, O., & Goel, V. (2005). Neural correlates of creative cognition. In Evolutionary and Neurocognitive Approaches to the Arts (Martindale, C., Locher, P., & Petrov, V.M., Eds.), pp. 195–207. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.Google Scholar
Von Foerster, H. (1984). Observing Systems. Salinas, CA: Intersystems Publications.Google Scholar
Wells, C. (1994). Sketches: Outline with References. Accessed at http://www.case.edu/artsci/math/wells/pub/pdf/sketch.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, S. (1994). Cellular Automata and Complexity. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Yoshikawa, H. (1981). General design theory and CAD system. In Man–Machine Communication in CAD/CAM (Sata, T., & Warman, E., Eds.), pp. 35–58. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Zamenopoulos, T. (2008). Design out of complexity: a mathematical theory of design as a universal property of organization. PhD Thesis. University College London, University of London.Google Scholar
Zamenopoulos, T., & Alexiou, K. (2005 a). Linking design and complexity: a review. Proc. ECCS 2005 Satellite Workshop Embracing Complexity in Design, pp. 91–102. Paris, November 17, 2005, Open University.Google Scholar
Zamenopoulos, T., & Alexiou, K. (2005 b). The problem of design in complexity research. Proc. European Conf. Complex Systems (ECCS’05), pp. 137–138, Paris.Google Scholar
Zamenopoulos, T., & Alexiou, K. (2007 a). Rethinking the cybernetic basis of design: the concepts of control and organization. Kybernetes 36(9/10), 1570–1589.Google Scholar
Zamenopoulos, T., & Alexiou, K. (2007 b). Towards an anticipatory view of design. Design Studies 28(4), 411–436.Google Scholar
Zamenopoulos, T., & Alexiou, K. (2011). A complexity theoretic view of cities as artefacts of design intentionality. In Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age (Portugali, J., & Meyer, H., Eds.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar