Klaus,
There have been many research efforts to understand aspects of the "real
world" that seemed pointless originally (at least to some), but ended up
yielding surprising benefits.
The point of trying to model how people think is to understand, and then
to apply that understanding to other things. Maybe it will help doctors
diagnose and treat mental disease. Maybe it will help designers
understand why people like some products and not others. Maybe it will
help us understand why racism happens. Who knows? I'm willing to wait
and see, and (likely) be pleasantly surprised.
Cheers.
Fil
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> in my opinion, glen has it right when he says:
>
> If humans can take advantage of appropriately designed
> technology-based or technology enhanced resources and can
> then be flexible and creative in using them, we might have
> the best of both.
>
> i do not see the point of developing complex models of the conversations
> within which we learn emotions and learn to verbalize emotions. we humans
> enjoy (or try to avoid) emotions as we engage each other in conversations,
> invent new artifacts and create useful practices. what would be the use of
> a computer who is programmed to feel something. often we don't even know
> our own (human) feelings unless we learn to talk about them (e.g., in
> therapeutic sessions where one can learn a lot about one's so-called inner
> life).
>
> i do not see the point of modeling what intelligent humans do well. we have
> plenty of people on earth with brains to do engage in all kinds of
> activities. computers are simply bad models of what humans do. they become
> useful mainly when they do something we cannot do. then and only then can
> we take advantage of them.
>
> thus, the point is not to automate design but to develop technology that
> enhances certain procedures, technology that expands our intellectual
> abilities, not replicate them.
>
> klaus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn E Snelbecker, PhD, Professor
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:25 PM
> To: Klaus Krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Automata and redefinition of design practice (was: Robotic
> thought)
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Interesting discussion.
> Klaus (and some others) have expressed ideas that have
> reminded me of a parallel situation in decision making,
> problem solving or a similar topic, some years ago.
>
> As I recall, the comment was that computers are more
> consistent in carrying out decision rules and procedures,
> but that humans are much better in knowing when to make
> exceptions or to try other approaches.
>
> Of course, computer strategies and power are much greater in
> power and sophistication now than at that time (and getting
> better.
>
> I suspect that this distinction between 'firing' sets of
> rules or following complex decision making procedures still
> may favor computers or humans. But I also expect that humans
> will maintain an advantage in deciding when 'some other
> approach, or some other idea' might be better for prevailing
> circumstances.
>
> If humans can take advantage of appropriately designed
> technology-based or technology enhanced resources and can
> then be flexible and creative in using them, we might have
> the best of both.
>
> Just a few thoughts to consider.
>
> Glenn Snelbecker
>
> ---- Original message ----
>
>>Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:54:24 -0500
>>From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: Re: Automata and redefinition of design practice
>
> (was: Robotic thought)
>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>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:PHD-
>
> [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/
>
> Glenn E. Snelbecker, Ph.D., Professor, Temple University
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|
