Don,
By that rational, wouldn't that mean that only through extensive training
and exposure to exemplars could one, recognize an object of design, as in
the training of a neural network? So there is no definition but instead
only a sophisticated system by which we decide whether something is in fact
a product of design?
I think the problem here would be our ability to articulate the knowledge
stored in the network, right?
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ah, terry. Terry, Terry, Terry.
>
> Your definition of definition is indeed a definition. But it is not
> necessarily correct.
>
> Read Wittgenstein on the definition of a game.
>
> Modern cognitive scientists prefer a nearest neighbor definition. People
> have a prototypical example of things: a tree, dog, bird, fish. A designer,
> artist, engineer. Then, for any instance, they place the instance in the
> multi-dimensional attribute space and name it by the prototype to which it
> is closest, weighted by contextual cues, information, etc. (If you want a
> math model, consider a Bayesian network, with a-priories and current
> evidence).
>
> One of my favorite examples is night and day. Everyone knows what night and
> day are, but try defining the boundary: there are multiple "official"
> definitions. Most of us just accept that dawn and dusk are neither day nor
> night but rather some in-between state.
>
> So your claim that we must somehow find a definition that includes all
> possible cases and excludes all possible non-cases is wonderful and
> valuable, but very seldom obtainable in the real world in which some of us
> live.
>
> Very truly yours,
>
> Don
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > A requirement of a definition is it defines a boundary that completely
> > includes 'everything that must be included' and simultaneously completely
> > excludes 'everything that must be excluded' (the 'necessary and
> sufficient'
> > condition. Most definitions, like that of Simon are partial. There are
> > other
> > aspects of design activity that some might see as essential that are not
> > included in Simon's definition. In other cases, there are other
> activities
> > that are included that some would argue unhelpfully include overmuch. For
> > example, 'rem sleep activities' would fit within Simon's definition of
> > design. As in 'design is everything' the problem then becomes that of
> lack
> > of precision and sensitivity: by including everything one defines
> nothing.
> > Similarly, Simon's definition does not effectively distinguish between
> > design and art.
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Don Norman
> Nielsen Norman Group, IDEO Fellow
> [log in to unmask] www.jnd.org http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
> Book: "Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded<
> http://amzn.to/ZOMyys>"
> (DOET2). Pub date: November 2013
> Course: Udacity On-Line course based on
> DOET2<https://www.udacity.com/course/design101> (free).
> Nov 2013.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Regards,
Tony Carton
Assistant Professor, Graphic and Interactive Design
College of Arts and Sciences
South Dakota State University
[log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|