Systems and complexity theories are transversal approaches that provide a new way of thinking as a response to the traditional reductionist approach that emerged with modernity. Complexity and transdisciplinarity are particularly relevant in an increasingly diverse, networked, uncertain, and fast-changing world. Examples are drawn from personal experience in academia, cross-cultural experiences, and the arts.
Let’s begin our exploration here by trying to understand the purpose of bias. We go out in the world every day and make decisions about what is safe or not, what is appropriate or not, and so on. This automatic decision making is what psychologist Joseph LeDoux has suggested is an unconscious “danger detector” that determines whether or not something or someone is safe before we can even begin to consciously make a determination.4 When the object, animal, or person is assessed to be dangerous, a “fight or flight” fear response occurs.
Source Link: http://www.cookross.com/docs/UnconsciousBias.pdf
There are two aspects to the Seven Levels Model: the Stages of Psychological
Development model and the Levels of Consciousness model. We grow in stages (of
psychological development) and we operate at levels (of consciousness).
Bates’ (1994) proposition – “believability will not arise from copying reality,” (p. 125) and suggest that recent research discoveries (such as those documented in Reeves and Nass, 1996) point toward a different fundamental orientation in our interactions with computerized systems, given the additional cognitive processing required to maintain awareness of the mediated and created nature of the interaction embodied in 10 qualities. Namely: These ten key qualities are: identity, backstory, appearance, content of speech, manner of speaking, manner of gesturing, emotional dynamics, social interaction patterns, role, and role dynamics.
To the authors of Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication, I
especially appreciate the innovation and depth of the research they share here.
They deserve special thanks for thoughtfully engaging one another’s ideas,
as reflected in the numerous cross-references between chapters throughout
the volume. Paul Duffield captures the essential themes of this conversation
in his compelling cover art, and I am grateful for his creativity in translating
these ideas into images, giving readers an overview of the contents before
they even open the book.
Concepts of gods, like any other concepts, are informed and constrained by cross-cultural regularities of the human mind-brain. Specifically, divine beings that are represented as intentional agents are subject to the cognitive intuitions that govern all intentional agents. These intuitions may include psychological and physical attributes not endorsed by a given theological tradition. Experimental evidence is presented supporting the presence of these cognitive constraints and a resulting divergence between stated theological beliefs and implicit concepts. Hindu residents of northern India completed questionnaires regarding attributes of Brahman, Shiva, Vishnu, or Krishna and also participated in a narrative comprehension task. Results revealed striking differences in how the gods were conceived in the two contexts.