Re: What *is* design?

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:18:21 -0600, in talk.origins , dkomo
> <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> in
> <YpqdnUtJp4HchtDenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:50:52 -0600, in talk.origins , dkomo
>>><dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> in <HIWdndP6H5rGbdfeRVn-tQ@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Designed things have a purpose, and they have a function
>>>>or set of functions that implement that purpose. Also, designed things
>>>>are *made* by a separate agent. They are not self-created."
>>>
>>>
>>>So today it is cloudy while I take a walk, so I don't care about the
>>>shade from the trees. As such they have no purpose. Yesterday it was
>>>sunny, so I used that shade. It had a purpose. So yesterday the shade
>>>was designed, today it is not.
>>>
>>
>>Let me make the definition clearer. Designed things have a purpose for
>>the agent that makes them. The shade is not a designed thing for you
>>because you didn't make it for a purpose. It is a *found* thing.
>
>
> So replace the trees with a slag pile from my backyard blast furnace.
> I made the stuff, sometimes it has a purpose, sometimes it does not.
>

So how is this relevant to anything? A car is a designed thing.
Sometimes it is driven down the road, sometimes it sits in the driveway,
an inert collection of metal, glass and plastic. Are you implying the
car has a purpose only when it is being driven along the road?

> [snip]
>
>
>>>Why isn't gravity an agent? What specifically separates simple forces
>>>from "complex" ones from humans or ants?
>
>
>>There is a reciprocal relation between the agent and the designed thing
>>in my definition. The designed thing serves some purpose for the agent.
>>A scree pile serves no purpose for gravity or erosion.
>
>
> How are you detecting his purpose? Maybe gravity likes lumps.
>

You detect the purpose by watching the agent making the designed thing,
then watching what he(it) does with it.

Are we talking about two different things regarding design here? I
reiterate again I'm trying to generalize the definition of design. I'm
not proposing anything about detecting design in the absence of the
design agent. Absentee detection is a separate issue. I doubt that it
can be done in all possible circumstances.

>
>>>>I'd like to avoid making intent a part of the definition of design
>>>>because I'd like to extend the process of design to allow machines
>>>>(specifically AI programs) and animals to be considered designers under
>>>>some conditions.
>>>
>>>
>>>And I don't know a meaningful way to distinguish intent from purpose.
>>
>>An agent may have intent, and that intent is realized in the purpose of
>>the designed thing. In other words, the purpose is in the design, the
>>intent is in the agent.
>
>
> So it is the same thing just seen from a different perspective.
>

No, I suspect that for you and Wilkins intent is something that only a
self-aware, intelligent agent can have. Am I right about this? Intent
would involve making conscious choices and being aware that you are
making those choices.

This is what I call an anthrocentric view regarding intent. It's not
part of my definition of design. Intent can be possessed by
non-self-aware, mostly non-intelligent or semi-intelligent agents -- AI
programs, ants, beavers, birds, etc. Purpose can be a property of
inanimate designed things -- houses, dams, termite mounds, etc.

>
>>Which doesn't imply that I agree that intent should be made a part of
>>the definition of design.
>
>
> Because you prefer looking at the same thing in a different place.
> Otherwise let me know about some thing that has purpose where there is
> not a directly related intent on the part of the agent.
>

I'm willing to include intent in my definition as long as that intent
can be inferred by observation and applied to AI programs, ants,
beavers, birds, etc.


--dkomo@xxxxxxxx

>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution is not random?
    ... Below is the definition that best meets my "intent". ... "intent" than the third or later definitions of a guiding agent. ... "optimize" is used in the pattern sense and not design sense right? ... pattern, not something that is different from "pattern". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What *is* design?
    ... >>>the agent that makes them. ... >> I made the stuff, sometimes it has a purpose, sometimes it does not. ... design have any real meaning. ... And infer the intent of that agent. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What *is* design?
    ... >>or set of functions that implement that purpose. ... the agent that makes them. ... >>I'd like to avoid making intent a part of the definition of design ... > And I don't know a meaningful way to distinguish intent from purpose. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What *is* design?
    ... >>>It doesn't necessarily require intention on the part of the design agent. ... there's more to the definition of design than just uniqueness. ... > or set of functions that implement that purpose. ... And we need to be able to discern the intent of the agent. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: JOIN THE NRA !!
    ... are designed to kill and maim human beings. ... I will simply note that an AW shares the same design as any other gun. ... but AW are not designed with the intent of being lethal weapons. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)