| 1. |
- Kåhre, Peter, 1955-
(author)
-
På AI-teknikens axlar
- 2009
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This dissertation is concerned with Sociology’s stance in the debate on Strong Artificial Intelligence, i.e. such AI that is able to shape new knowledge without human interference. There is a need for sociologists to realize the difference between two approaches to constructing AI systems: Symbolic AI (or Classic AI) and Distributed AI – DAI.Sociological literature shows a largely critical attitude towards Symbolic AI, an attitude that is justified. The main theme of this dissertation is that DAI is not only compatible with Sociology’s approach to what is social, but also constitutes an apt model of how a social system functions. This is consolidated with help from Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory and from Vygotsky-oriented education scientists who claim that processes leading to new knowledge are about expansion and not about problem solving. Problem solving only leads to elaborating existing knowledge. It is shown that human being has always used several types of artefacts and tools to produce culture and knowledge. This shows that humans are dependent on their environment and that knowledge is not only something that has to do with their brain, but also the rest of their bodies and their environments.Further, Strong AI is not about robots thinking in the same way as humans, but about holistic social processes where the actor does not need to have a complex functionality. This provides a good opportunity to explain what sociologists call emergency, i.e. how social processes shape new knowledge independent of human actors.The possibility of AI has to be evaluated in terms of human beings’ capacities to cope with reflexive processes. Luhmann teaches us that we have to see the difference between three different forms of reflexivity: self-reference, reflexivity and reflection. We contend that, in order to be able to shape new knowledge in expanding processes, there must be circumstances that allow reflection. Luhmann writes that knowledge-producing processes are dependent on capacities for reflection between the social systems and their environments. Strong AI has more capacity to handle these processes than humans have, while the strongest argument for strong DAI is that it can reach a far wider area than human beings’ brains can. This capacity for reflection is a better way of judging the capacity of strong AI, than questions about causal capacity and capacity for action.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kåhre, Peter
(author)
-
På AI-teknikens axlar : Om kunskapssociologin och stark artificiell intelligens
- 2009
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This dissertation is concerned with Sociology’s stance in the debate on Strong Artificial Intelligence, i.e. such AI that is able to shape new knowledge without human interference. There is a need for sociologists to realize the difference between two approaches to constructing AI systems: Symbolic AI (or Classic AI) and Distributed AI – DAI. Sociological literature shows a largely critical attitude towards Symbolic AI, an attitude that is justified. The main theme of this dissertation is that DAI is not only compatible with Sociology’s approach to what is social, but also constitutes an apt model of how a social system functions. This is consolidated with help from Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory and from Vygotsky-oriented education scientists who claim that processes leading to new knowledge are about expansion and not about problem solving. Problem solving only leads to elaborating existing knowledge. It is shown that human being has always used several types of artefacts and tools to produce culture and knowledge. This shows that humans are dependent on their environment and that knowledge is not only something that has to do with their brain, but also the rest of their bodies and their environments. Further, Strong AI is not about robots thinking in the same way as humans, but about holistic social processes where the actor does not need to have a complex functionality. This provides a good opportunity to explain what sociologists call emergency, i.e. how social processes shape new knowledge independent of human actors. The possibility of AI has to be evaluated in terms of human beings’ capacities to cope with reflexive processes. Luhmann teaches us that we have to see the difference between three different forms of reflexivity: self-reference, reflexivity and reflection. We contend that, in order to be able to shape new knowledge in expanding processes, there must be circumstances that allow reflection. Luhmann writes that knowledge-producing processes are dependent on capacities for reflection between the social systems and their environments. Strong AI has more capacity to handle these processes than humans have, while the strongest argument for strong DAI is that it can reach a far wider area than human beings’ brains can. This capacity for reflection is a better way of judging the capacity of strong AI, than questions about causal capacity and capacity for action.
|
|
| 3. |
- Persson, Marcus
(author)
-
Mellan människor och ting : En interaktionistisk analys av samlandet
- 2007
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- In most sociological paradigms the importance of human interaction for the understanding of societies, is a well established fact. In this study, the focus is the interaction between human beings and material things as it is occurring in practice. Such an approach with its important consequences for understanding both social life and self, is often overlooked in studies within the field of sociology. In sociology things are often treated as either goods or gifts ? both aspects focusing on the symbolic meaning of things, and their role as mediators between humans. Things are, however, not only to be understood in terms of immaterial meaning, but also in terms of material things which humans coordinate their actions with. In this regard things are seen as objectives for human action, or ?action participants?, and become important for the social lives of individuals. Building upon the theoretical works of George Herbert Mead and Hans Joas this study aims to explore and enrich a neo-median theory of action with focus on the creative dynamics between humans and things. The theoretical work is developed in relation to an analysis of collecting activities and practices ? activities that are permeated with generally accepted stereotypical ideas about what a ?real? collector are, or a ?real? collectible. In this study, the understanding is not centred on general conceptions of collectibles and collectors. Instead the ambition is to ?reach behind? such images. This is done with the help of a phenomenological approach, characterized by an attempt to analyze the foundation on which all forms of colleting activities is based, in this study understood as the relationship between human beings and material things ? a relation that precedes general conceptions of ?real? collectors or collectibles. The empirical material for this analysis consists of twelve interviews with Swedish ? male and female ? collectors, and of observations. In addition to this popular material (tv-shows, magazines, fiction, etc) is used to explore the everyday attitude towards collecting and collectors. Intertwining Meads ideas of ?play? and ?game? with Joas ?theory of creativity of action?, the aim is to enrich the theory of creativity of action. In this study, the concepts of play and game are treated as two separate aspects of action, rather than two ontogenetical phases in the development of children. This result in a theory of creativity of action that is ?age-less?, i.e. no matter the age of a person, s/he acts creative towards others (human beings and material things) in playful and game-oriented ways. The game-oriented aspect of creative action emanate from experience of and identification with the normative rules and norms of a specific activity. When analyzing collecting practices and activities, it becomes evident that men and women of all age, act towards material things in playful and game-oriented ways, but it is most often men that are recognized as ?real? (game-oriented) collectors. By building on Meads and Joas theories, analyzing the activity and action of collecting interactionistically, this study argues that it is possible to enrich the theory of creativity of action as well as understanding the activity of collecting in a more complex and multifaceted way.
|
|
