Absolute Essay -- essays research papers

An elephant was brought to a group of blind men who had never encountered such an animal before. One felt a leg and reported that an elephant is a great living pillar. Another felt the trunk and reported that an elephant is a great snake. Another felt a tusk and reported that an elephant is like a sharp ploughshare. And so on. And then they all quarreled together, each claiming that his own account was the truth and therefore all the others false (traditional parable). None of the accounts that the blind men made about the nature of the elephant are absolute truths, nor are the accounts false. An absolute truth, or one that is true for all, can not be achieved because of the constant motion of circumstances of who said it, to whom, when, where, why, and how it was said. Instead of absolute truths, the concepts or beliefs that the blind men claim are viewpoints that each one clarifies the nature of the elephant. Everybody has learned to see things from his or her own sense of reason and logic. The many things that people experience throughout their lifetimes, help to determine the judgments toward the different issues and objects that they encounter. Because individuals has his or her own sense of reason and logic, the perceptions that people encounter are ultimately true, and not false. Life does not contain one truth for any idea or object, but truths can be found in one’s perception. It is difficult to determine that anything is the absolute truth. One should not prove tha...

Intelligent Agents Essay -- Computer Science

Intelligent Agents Abstract Intelligent Agents are software abstractions which potentially can make life easier and more productive for computer users. These agents are autonomous entities that can be asked to do tedious or complicated tasks for the user or unscramble the complexities of computer applications. "Many agents are based on the idea that the user need only specify a high-level goal instead of issuing explicit instructions, leaving the 'how' and 'when' decisions to the agent" 3. The agent either steps the user through the process at hand or goes off on its own and reports back with the requested information or completed task. Artificial Intelligence principles are used to program these agents. Introduction The modern computer era has brought with it a phenomenal volume of information. The internet in particular is comprised of far too much information for any one person to utilize. Therefore computer users must be able to use their time efficiently. One must be able to filter through all the information bringing back only pertinent, recent data quickly and easily. Also, as applications and hardware become more powerful and complicated, the user must be able to figure out how to master new tasks. These two challenges can be made easier with the use of intelligent agents. One example would be the following: A person wants to find a job in the computer industry as a programmer and decides to search the internet for available positions. Without the use of intelligent agents, the person would spend hours searching for every position having to do with computers and programming. A search query would return thousands upon thousands of links that would have to be weeded through to find the ones that were pertinent. An ... ...be expertly guided through complicated procedures by these agents. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 http://www.networking.ibm.com/iag/iaghome.htm 2 http://nittany.ca.sandia.gov:8001/defs.html 3 http://cyclone.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/agents.html 4 http://www.advtech.microsoft.com/research/ui/persona/isbister.htm 5 http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/STAFF/mike/ker95/ker95.html 6 Maes, P. (1994b). Social interface agents: Acquiring competence by learning from users and other agents. In Etzioni, O., editor, Software Agents - Papers from the 1994 Spring Symposium (Technical Report SS-94-03), pages 71-78. AAAI Press. 7 Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer science as empirical enquiry. Communications of the ACM, 19:113-126. 8 Shoham, Y. (1990). Agent-oriented programming. Technical Report STAN-CS-1335-90, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

Essay examples --

Whether you want to disseminate an issue, send invitations for an upcoming event, promote or support a good cause, connect with old friends, or even create a buzz about something for that matter, social networking sites are what people take to these days for any sort of such activity. The rising trend of this generation is that almost everything, personal or professional, is online. Forms like email and instant messaging are losing their significance in the lives of today's generation as the bulk of users engaged in social networking platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google Plus, and LinkedIn are increasing at an exponential rate. Although impossible to pick the best, the most prevalent today are Facebook and Twitter. They are both ruling social media today, but are different in terms of their versatility, privacy settings, and features such as groups and pages. Both Facebook and Twitter are extremely popular social networking services with a colossal user base. With Facebook touching a monthly user base of 1.23 billion in 2013, it has emerged as the most powerful social media of all time ("Facebook Userbase," 2014). Not so far behind is Twitter that has now evolved as one of the top most social messaging platforms with 232 million monthly active users (Edwards, 2013). Both are based on the central idea of connecting the world and are special in their own ways. They are both now available as mobile apps for Android, Apple, Windows Phone and BlackBerry users. However, there exist some features that make Facebook quite distinct from Twitter. To begin with, the former is quite evolved in terms of versatility compared to the latter. Every Facebooker can upload photos and videos, play popular games such as Fa... ...nuously as well. In fact, if the user base of Twitter grows at a faster rate and the developers add more new features to make it more versatile and user-friendly it may even prove to be a threat to Facebook. Nevertheless, it is paramount for both to stay in their zones and work on what they are best known and valued for in order to cater to the masses in the long run. References Facebook userbase touches 1.23 billion in 2013. (2014, January 30). The Economic Times. Retrieved from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-01-30/news/46828393_1_ad-revenue-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-facebook-coo-sheryl-sandberg Edwards, J. (2013, Nov 5). Twitter is surprisingly small compared to a bunch of other apps and online companies. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-user-base-compared-to-other-apps-and-online-companies-2013-11

Term paper of Bill of rights

Two further constitutions were drafted and adopted during wo short-lived war-time governments, by the revolutionary forces during the Philippine Revolution with Emilio Aguinaldo as President and by the occupation forces during the Japanese Occupation of the Philippines during World War II with Jos © P. Laurel as President. Article Ill – Bill of Rights consists of 22 Sections. The objective of this paper is to determine the significance of having this Bill of Rights to our country and to identify by the people the importance of knowing the Bill of Rights in each of everyone surrounded by this law.A bill of rights is a list of the most important rights to the citizens of a country. The purpose of these bills is to protect those rights against infringement. The term â€Å"bill of rights† originates from england . The purpose of a Bill of Rights is to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. The Bill of Rights ? How many rights do you have?You should check, because it might not be as many today as it was a few years ago, or even a few months ago. Some people I talk to are not concerned that police will execute a search warrant without nocking or that they set up roadblocks and stop and interrogate innocent citizens. They do not regard these as great infringements on their rights. But when you put current events together, there is information that may be surprising to people who have not yet been concerned: The amount of the Bill of Rights that is under attack is alarming. What about the meaning of Rights ? re legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom orentitlement ; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disci plines as law and ethics , especially theories of Justice and deontology. Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society andculture and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development.According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, â€Å"rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. † The connection between rights they are fought for and claimed, and the essence of struggles past and ancient are ncoded in the spirit of current concepts of rights and their modern formulation. Filipino Citizen must know the things they could legally do and the limitation on their acts. It is also themselves who will benefit if they would know their own rights and privilages .The importance of the study is to tell the purpose of the article 3 of the Philippine Constitution which is the bill of rights . The study ai ms to give you imformation from the section under bill of rights. The Study focuses on the Freedom and Protection that the government offers to the citizen and the benefits they would get with respect to the bill of rights and its ection. Article Ill. Bill of Rights Section 1 . No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may roduce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Section 3. 1) The privacy of communication and corresponden ce shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. Section 5.No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired e xcept in the interest of national security, public safety, or ublic health, as may be provided by law.Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without Just compensation. Section 10.No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. Section 1 1 . Free access to the courts and quasi-Judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. ) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Foundations of Mythology Short Answers Essay

How is the word myth used popularly? For example, what does the statement, â€Å"It’s a myth† mean? In contrast, how is the word myth used in the academic context? After considering the definition in your textbooks and course materials, write a definition in your own words. The word myth is used popularly, for example the statement, â€Å"It’s a myth† generally means that is untrue or a lie. The term myth means is that certain events or stories are embellished and unfounded on the basis of common societal knowledge. They are legends and they are things that seem outrageous, but are not necessarily true. The one I go back to over and over is the picture of the camel spider from Iraq. It was supposed to be a two foot spider that would attach to people without them ever knowing until it was too late. The internet has allowed for many of these fabrications to take hold and become something of an internet urban legend. The word myth in an academic context refer s to stories from the past. I am drawn to Greek mythology where stories are told of outrageous human beings as they are involved with gods and learn life lessons. I think a myth is meant to be a teaching vessel. Why do myths from different cultures around the world address such similar or universal themes? Think about how myths explain the unknown and the tribulations of mankind. People need to know who they are and where they come from and what is their purpose in life. Questions like why the world exists and how it was created. These myths have been passed down from ages throughout history. Each culture has an explanation of creation and the beginning of mankind. From man being created by the God’s from the dust of the earth to the great Zeus the creator of all things. These explain many of the questions that humans have relating to creation and purpose. What is the relationship between belief, knowledge, mythology, and religion? Where do mythology and religion intersect? Where do they diverge? Think a bout the function of myth and religion in helping human beings cope with change, suffering, loss, and death. The relationship between belief, knowledge, mythology, and religion  are all based on an idea of knowing, teaching, and learning to be the best person that you can possibly be. I know this may sound a bit optimistic, but I think that part of living life is to become the best person that one can be. I think that believing something is based on a personal confidence. I think that knowledge is based on a concept of personal improvement. I think that mythology is based on a concept of historical teaching and I think that religion is based on an attempt to find personal peace and personal enlightenment. Where do religion and mythology intersect? They are each historical teachings that are meant to help a person become a better person. The human being will go through a variety of cycles throughout their lives. This will include coping with change, suffering, loss, death, and happiness. What these are meant to do is help a person deal with all of the changes that they are undergoing. How would you defend mythology’s relevance in contemporary culture? Think about familial and cultural traditions. Also, consider how mythology is used in the arts and in advertising to typify human experience. They could be defended by what they are attempting to teach. They are meant to help a person deal with the challenges that take place throughout everyday life. Life is challenging and life is hard. Myths can be defended and should be defended because they are meant to help a person deal with the challenges that take place throughout the hardships of life. When we consider the familial and cultural traditions they are important because they offer insight to historical perspective. They allow us to see how much society has changed and how much people have remained the same in regards to their conflicts and problems. Typifying the human experience is an example. Who could say that our society is not filled with mythology as it is? I think that it is entirely. Movies, books, stories and visual images are all modern mythology. Who is to say that centuries from now societies won’t look back on our culture today and view our movies and books as we view myths and cave art? It’s interesting to think about.

God’s Foreknowledge and the Problem of Evil Essay

In his essay[1] on the possibility of God’s having middle knowledge of the actions of free agents and the relationship of that knowledge, if it exists, to the problem of evil,[2] RM Adams discusses two questions: firstly, whether middle knowledge is possible, even for God, and secondly, whether God could have made free creatures who would always freely do right. These questions highlight the importance of trying to understand how much God knows about the future and the relationship of the answer to that question with the problem of evil. In the present essay I review four major possible views of God’s foreknowledge and highlight their strengths and weaknesses, paying particular attention to Adams’ arguments on Middle Knowledge which lead to his conclusion that there is reason to doubt its possibility. I then review Adams’ arguments about its impact on the problem of evil and, having concluded, as he does, that, middle knowledge being available or not, permitting some evil in order to allow creatures to have free will may contribute to a theodicy but not complete it, I consider how this situation might be improved by accepting that the future is at least partly open. The problem The problem of evil has been the subject of theological dispute for centuries. If God is, as the traditional Christian view would have it, omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good, how come there is evil in the world? Such a God, the argument goes, would not only wish to dispel evil from the world, but, since he can do anything, he would have done so. Since he clearly has not, either he is not able to do so or he does not care, or perhaps he doesn’t exist. While arguments such as the above call into doubt the possibility of God’s being at once omnipotent and perfectly good, the problem of evil is also closely related to the issue of his omniscience, in particular to his foreknowledge. If God knows everything about the future, including what choices between good and evil I will make, am I really free to make those choices? But does God actually know everything, particularly about contingent future events? There are many views of the God’s foreknowledge; I will consider four principal ones. The Simple Foreknowledge View. This view holds that God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods, or as Hunt puts it ‘God has complete and infallible knowledge of the future’[3], a simple statement and one which is subject to some serious objections. In the context of this essay the most important objection is that it would appear to negate the possibility of human freedom. As Augustine’s interlocutor, Evodius, says, ‘since God foreknew that he [Adam] was going to sin, his sin necessarily had to happen. How then is the will free when such inescapable necessity is found in it? ’[4] Augustine then argues that ‘God’s foreknowledge does not force the future to happen†¦. God foreknows everything that he causes but does not cause everything that he foreknows†¦ sin is committed by the will not coerced by God’s foreknowledge. ’[5] If God did cause or coerce Adam to sin he would be exempt from blame but, Hunt maintains, following Augustine, the simple fact of God’s knowing in advance what Adam (and more generally, we) will do does not constitute coercion. It is true that God’s foreknowing†¦ leaves Adam with no alternatives†¦ But the mere absence of alternatives is irrelevant†¦ simply knowing what the person will do is not an interference of any sort, and its implications for free agency are benign. ’[6] Hunt’s view is that we should ‘trust our intuition’ that Adam is deprived of alternatives but not free will. For me however, this is not my intuition. This and similar arguments elsewhere appear to be doing little more than restating the problem, and do not provide a satisfactory escape route. The problem is one of logic not theology. If it is inevitable, foreknown infallibly, that I will do A then it is not in reality an option for me not to do A. I might think that I am choosing between A and not-A, but if God knows which I will choose then in reality I am deluded: there is no possibility of my choosing not-A and if I don’t have any choice this also seems to remove any possibility of blame or responsibility for my actions. How can I be held responsible for an action which I could not avoid doing? Worse, since I do things which patently are evil and could have been avoided if I really had free will, it is arguable that God himself is responsible for, or at least knows in advance and allows to happen, the evil that I do. In addition to the free-will problem, proponents of the simple foreknowledge view have to explain what we are doing when we pray. Are we asking God to change the future? And if he does graciously agree to change it, would that not mean that he was wrong when he earlier knew, supposedly infallibly, what the future was to include before he changed it? It is an important part of this view of God that he believes no falsehoods, but if our prayers have any effect, that would seem to entail the falsehood of God’s earlier beliefs about that particular aspect of the future. It should be noted at this point that the simple foreknowledge view is fully compatible with the Christian understanding of God’s being outside time. I will return to this later, but sacrificing or compromising this understanding would be a heavy price to pay for many Christian theologians. These objections taken together seem to me to make simple foreknowledge, without some considerable modification, incompatible with an understanding of humans as responsible agents. The other views I discuss below attempt in different ways to make sufficient modifications to deal with this problem while remaining true to scripture. I should of course consider the possibility that, in coming to this conclusion about the difficulties of the simple foreknowledge view, I have not understood the question. Could it be that what I mean by either ‘free ill’ or ‘knowledge’ is somehow different to what generations of theologians have meant? For myself, I maintain that my action is free if I could do otherwise than what I actually decide to do and, crucially, no-one else knows in advance what I will decide to do, not even God. And knowledge in this context can be taken as ‘justified true belief’ which is just the sort of knowledge that God is supposed to have infallibly. It seems that simple foreknowledge is not to be rescued by recourse to a dictionary. The Augustinian-Calvinist View This view, as expounded by Helm,[7] does indeed depend on a careful compatibilist definition of ‘free will’ which enables him to argue that it is not necessary to accept either a modified, reduced account of omniscience, or that human agents are not responsible for their actions. Here ‘compatibilism’ is the view that free will is compatible with causal determinism, a view that Helm maintains was explicitly held by the later Augustine (probably as a result of further thought compared with his earlier writings) and implicitly by Calvin. The latter is evidenced firstly by the distinction he drew between necessity and compulsion, and secondly by his successors’ taking a similar view of free will, calling it the liberty of rational spontaneity while denying the liberty of indifference. [8] Helm distinguishes three concepts of God’s foreknowledge. One is causal in the sense used by Aquinas: God’s knowledge is the cause of things and on this view there is no distinction between what God causes and permits since God foreknows all events and therefore must cause them all. There is an inference from this that God causes future evil but Aquinas is said to have allowed the concept of divine permission whereby God is said to know of it but not cause it. More on that later. The second sense has God’s foreknowledge logically subsequent to his decree and is simply the knowledge of that decree before it takes effect in time, and the third is the reverse of this, with the foreknowledge logically prior to his decree. His arguments entail one or other of the first two senses, but not the third. Based on these starting points Helm raises three arguments in support of the Augustinian position. First there is the role of God’s grace. The argument between those who believe and those who do not believe that God’s foreknowledge is compatible with human incompatibilism, Helm says, is not about the nature of God or of human freedom but about the relationship between God and humankind. Divine grace and free, incompatibilist choice can only be causally necessary for a person’s coming to faith, but not causally sufficient since, given our libertarian will, we could resist such grace and it would not therefore ensure its intended effect. However, scripture tells us that saving grace is irresistible and, when received, liberating: it alone, according to Augustine, ensures true human freedom,[9] and the inference is that such grace is therefore sufficient. The obvious objection here is that some people clearly do resist God’s saving grace, an objection that Helm does not deal with effectively. Secondly there is an argument based on divine perfection as reflected in his omnipotence and omniscience. Helm asks rhetorically how God knows of the causes of evil actions if he is not the cause of them, and quotes Augustine’s answer that God, for the highest reasons (which are at present unknown to us) knowingly permits particular evil actions. 10] In a rather obscure passage, Helm appears to argue as follows: (1) it is theologically desirable that God’s foreknowledge should be as complete as may reasonably be assumed and we should therefore assume that he does foreknow his free creatures freely willed actions; (2) If compatibilism is true then God can foreknow these actions and therefore (3) compatibilism is true. [11] However, as Hunt points out, this is fallacious and Helm should have argued for (2’) If compatibil ism is not true then God cannot foreknow†¦ but he has not done so. Finally Helm argues that God’s omniscience is logically inconsistent with human incompatibilist freedom. He supposes as an example that God foreknew yesterday the truth of the proposition ‘Jones will freely eat a tuna sandwich tomorrow. ’ That foreknowledge is now in the past and is therefore necessary, not logically but accidentally or historically, and therefore it entails the necessity that Jones will eat the tuna sandwich; that putatively free act cannot therefore be free. In that case divine omniscience is inconsistent with incompatibilist freedom. 12] Helm admits that this argument really only works with the assumption that God is in some fashion inside time for ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’ to have any force. [13] In summary, Helm believes his arguments have made the broadly Augustinian case that divine foreknowledge and human freedom are consistent, but I am hard-pressed to see that any of my objections to the simple foreknowledge argument are any less forceful in response to Helm. My logical worry and the problem of prayer remain, but these are supplemented by the acknowledged need for God to be temporal, at least for part of the argument to be successful. The Middle-Knowledge View This view is that espoused by Luis de Molina, a 16th century Spanish Jesuit theologian, who drew a distinction between three kinds of knowledge that, in his view, God possesses[14]. Firstly, Molina said, God possesses ‘natural knowledge’, that is a knowledge of all necessarily true propositions, such as ‘two plus two equals four’. Since such truths are necessary, nobody, not even God, can make them false. Secondly, God possesses ‘free knowledge’, that is knowledge of all contingent truths that are within his control, but which could have been false under different conditions,. For example ‘I am interested in philosophy’ is a contingently true proposition but God could have brought it about that it was false. Finally, Molina proposes that God possesses ‘middle knowledge’ (so called because it is in-between God’s natural and free knowledge), that is, knowledge of contingent propositions which are true but beyond his control. The most important items of middle knowledge for the purpose of this discussion are the ‘counterfactuals of freedom’ which describe what people would freely do if placed in various possible situations. This is relevant to the problem of evil because ‘it might seem that if God has middle knowledge, He could have secured creatures sinless but free by just creating those that he knew would not sin if allowed to act freely. ’[15] In his discussion of middle knowledge[16] Craig indicates its power and why it is so attractive in the discussion of free will and the problem of evil. If it is true that God has middle knowledge as described above, this not only makes room for human freedom but it gives God scope to choose which free creatures to create and bring about his ultimate purposes through free creaturely decisions. He adduces three lines of argument in support of it – biblical, theological and philosophical. [17] Biblical arguments: Craig uses the example of David and Saul: [18] David is in the Jewish city of Keilah and asks God through an ephod[19] if Saul will attack him there and whether the men of Keilah would give him up to Saul to save their lives. God answers affirmatively to both questions, whereupon Saul heads for the hills, with the result that Saul does not need to besiege the city and the men of Keilah do not need to betray him to Saul. It is clear, says Craig, that the bible passage shows that God has counterfactual knowledge, although he admits that this does not show conclusively that he has middle knowledge. He goes on to accept that biblical exegesis is not enough to settle the matter. [20] Theological arguments: Craig says that ‘the strongest arguments in support of the Molinist perspective are theological’[21] but gives no direct support for this other than to wax lyrical on the power of middle knowledge in theological argument on a range of issues. This may be correct, given the existence of middle knowledge, but that is what we wish to test. Philosophical arguments: Craig asserts that divine foreknowledge and future contingents are compatible ‘for the simple reason that Scripture teaches both’[23] (a theological rather than philosophical statement of course) and goes on to discuss the basis of such foreknowledge. He builds an argument about freedom of action, concluding that ‘from God’s knowledge that I shall do x, it does not follow that I must do x, only that I shall do x. That is in no way incompatible with my doing x freely. ’[24] This is really just a restatement of the problem of free will and Craig does little more here than reassert its truth. Craig’s final conclusion is that ‘philosophically, omniscience†¦ entails knowledge of all truth and, since counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are true logically prior to god’s creative decree, they must therefore be known by God at that logical moment. Therefore we should affirm that God has middle knowledge. ’

Architectural Branding Essay

The 4P’s have been extended to 7P’s namely: Price, Place, Promotion, People, Physical Evidence and Process. Architectural Branding is an important element of Physical Evidence very strongly prevailing in International Brands e. g. Calvin Klein, Nike town, D&G, Prada etc. With the changing Indian Market scenario and customer awareness Indian Brands have now realised to incorporate the culture of Architectural Branding as an important brand element. Possibly Brands like Colour Plus, Wills Lifestyle, Sepia also are trying to incorporate the concept of Architectural Banding. Therefore through an exploratory research on the related topics of branding it was felt that architectural branding will help us in the long run in the industry and would widen our horizon of knowledge. Down the line I felt that this concept would be taught to us in our course curriculum of Fashion Management. Through this topic of Architectural Branding we would get to learn about basics of Architecture, Interior Design and Design Space and relating these subjects to the Market Research and Consumer Behaviour. Information Needed ? Introduction to Architectural Branding Concepts of Architecture †¢ Material †¢ Types of Structure ? Architecture in Retail †¢ Exteriors †¢ Interior Design †¢ Store Layout, Design &