Re: What *is* design?

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:48:01 -0600, in talk.origins , dkomo
<dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> in <c5WdnVI-t7hZEtPeRVn-sg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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?

I am trying to determine if the terms we are using to distinguish
design have any real meaning. I was trying to apply your definition
and see if I could make it work. As I said, I made the slag heap. I
use it for shade. That should make it designed according to you. But I
did not intend it for shade. So is the purpose shade?

>> [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.

And infer the intent of that agent.

>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 guess I was going after two things. I agree with you that detecting
design requires knowledge of the agent. I assert that in particular it
requires knowledge of intent. We infer intent on the part of agents
and call that purpose. They are flip sides of the same coin.

>>>>>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.

I see no need for self-awareness at all. Well, let me clarify that. I
will accept that we can extend the concept of design to non-self-aware
agents, but I still don't see a way to separate intent from purpose.

>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.

Purpose is not a property of the thing, it is a property of the
*making* of the thing. In particular, the purpose of the thing is the
intended use of the thing. Purpose requires intent. It is the only way
to separate out a particular function of a thing from the infinite
number of things it does.

>>>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.

Intent (of others) is always inferred. To the extent that you all
resemble me I am willing to accept that you have similar internal
states. And I am tentatively willing to accept that others can have
similar states as well. But I see no way at all to separate intent and
purpose.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org

Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/

.

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?
    ... As such they have no purpose. ... >>the agent that makes them. ... reiterate again I'm trying to generalize the definition of design. ... >>>And I don't know a meaningful way to distinguish intent from purpose. ...
    (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: Open source alternative for MsAccess?
    ... These are not RAD database application development systems that can ... The design reflects the purpose of the product. ... VB is not VBA and VBA is not VBA as used in Access. ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.apps)