Klaus, what you write seems to be to be an accurate representation of
the way things are *now*.
But, there's no proof that "the choice of variables cannot be done by a
computer" except that it has not yet been done.
Heck, we don't even know how humans do it (yet). How do we know that
there isn't a computable method that corresponds to it?
Serendipity is certainly a feature of many important discoveries and
innovations, but I think of 'serendipity' as just another way of saying
'it doesn't fit into any of our *current* models'. I remain open to the
possibility that future models will be able to account for these features.
Cheers.
Fil
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> fil et al.
>
> sure we need humans to do designing. but this does not mean that we could
> provide computational design aids, methods. for example, the technique of
> defining variables and explore all alternatives that their systematic
> variation offers can be used to select a solution we might not have found.
> but, as i said earlier, the choice of variables cannot be done by a
> computer. the choice of the decision criterion for picking satisfactory
> solutions out of all possibilities cannot be done by a computer. there are
> some mathematical proofs found that way which were not anticipated by
> mathematicians designing the theory proven algorithms, but these are rare in
> fact, and not necessary more elegant.
>
> klaus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
> Of Filippo Salustri
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:42 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Automata and redefinition of design practice (was: Robotic
> thought)
>
>
> Klaus et al,
>
> That's why I work on the assumption that for practical concerns we need
> humans to do designing.
>
> But the history of science and technology has basically been a series of
> demonstrations of "Oh lookie! It *is* possible after all!". If I were
> a betting man, I'd bet on science and technology and the humans who make
> it happen, to come up with interesting new kinds of solutions. Someday.
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
>
> Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>
>>terry, glen, fil.
>>[...]
>>this is where finding of automatic solutions is stuck: (a) by the
>
> conception
>
>>of a cartesian space, (b) by the necessarily non-automatic (human)
>>definition of what is considered variable, (c) by the size of the space
>>created. and (d) by the difficulty if not impossibility to define an
>>algorithm that replicates human judgment of the variations this method
>>creates.
>>
>>to talk about automatig or computational design means overcomings all four
>>problems. good luck
>>
>>klaus
>
>
> --
> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> Ryerson University
> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
> Fax: 416/979-5265
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|