Hi Fil et al.
I am catching up different threads at the moment and thought
I should write here:
On 6/26/08, Filippo A. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Karen wrote (see below) a couple of things that I can't keep quiet about.
>
> I agree with Karen about every design solution coming eventually from
> 'nature', but I don't like thinking about nature as solving problems, as
> Karen implies (maybe unintentionally). Problems are only in our minds,
> they're a value judgement on the current state of affairs, which requires
> intent and consciousness. Nature has neither, as near as we can figure.
>
I also like the idea of taking advantage of natural systems as inspiration
> for artificial ones. The problem is, though, that nature works in such an
> entirely different scale, and in an entirely different way than we do or
> even can. We need more research in this area: how to adapt designing to
> pick up key features of natural systems that *we believe* will improve how
> we get things done.
I've just agreed to what Chris Rust commented about me being 'fuzzy'.
That's one of my bad habits because I rarely like to go into that great
detail to explain everything because it takes up a lot of time.
Especially so in writing, and talking can be quite an agony when its not
your first culture.
I apologize for that. : )
I really feel that using so many words to mean something abstract is a
chore,
when the mind can quickly do much faster. But anyway this may be seen
differently.
Anyway,I should have at least explain in more detail that I do not imply
that nature being
the ultimate solution. It cannot be.I should have said nature being the main
basis but not its entirety.
we can never actually trace and know every bit of Mother nature regardless
how advanced we are in
technology. You mentioned problems are value judgements.I think its
partially true. What if tomorrow
the climate falls on us, .that would be perceived by all to be a universal
problem.
The other thing Karen wrote was "Good thinking cannot come from a chaotic
> mess up
> orderless system" in reference to mental disorder & schizophrenics. There
> is a connection between extreme intelligence and mental illness. John Nash
> was basically nuts, yet worked brilliantly in (arguably) one of the most
> ordered and structured fields: mathematics. There's plenty of other
> examples.
Good thinking has to be crystal clear.
Though mental patients often cannot think well,
there are few who are exceptions. They probably
reason better than the so-called sane people. Probably the best
way to put it is to say that when their disease doesn't plague them
they are able to produce fine tuned thinking.[OT: I often suspect that the
very onset of any mental disease for such people is often stem
out of being different and spending too much time
in seclusion in their own world. To be able to walk out of that
world itself is rare. But a mind that is able to achieve that is
a superior one, IMHO]
Should have stated that clearer. Thanks Fil for the note.
I'd say "good thinking happens" and certain acquired behaviours (via
> education) can improve good thinking and increase its frequency and breadth.
I often think that though education does help, it can only do so
to a certain extent. Beyond a point, it probably isn't that important
either.
Often, I think, extremely bright minds are born. Its almost impossible
to teach people the intricacies of thinking despite quantitative or
qualitative
tools.It can only be felt and experienced. One
cannot exactly measure how the mind process. Especially minds like that
of John Nash or Einstein. You could guess and make
theories behind, preserving the brain and
peering into it in pieces time after time, but
I doubt anyone can really exactly replicate the natural process and
directly translate it to a *seemingly simple* man made one.
That's the magic of nature.
Hope I've made myself clearer. : )
Karen Fu
Cheers.
> Fil
> --
> Filippo A. Salustri, PhD, PEng
> Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
> Ryerson University, 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
> tel: 416/979-5000 x7749 fax: 416/979-5265
> [log in to unmask] http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Karen Fu <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Friday, June 13, 2008 1:51 pm
> Subject: Re: A simple definition of 'Design'?
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> > The thread is getting interesting.
> > I wish I have more time. But lets see
> > if I could add some quick thoughts before bedtime.
> >
> > Gunnar mentioned about nature.
> > I think all design solutions are directly or indirectly come
> > from nature. Nature supplies the best solutions to different problems.
> > The trick is to find the way to the solutions in our own
> > human man made way. How do we learn from nature depends
> > on individual's own way of looking for/investigating the problem
> > and the given answers that are in our environment.
> >
> > Susan mentioned about mental disorder and schizophrenics.
> > Good thinking cannot come from a chaotic mess up
> > orderless system.
> > A discipline sense of good order and clarity, an astute and diligent
> > mind that observes the intricate laws of nature and find the solutions
> > within.
> >
> > Actually there aren't that many rules around. You need to abide
> > with the fundamental few and the rest of your methodologies can
> > be formed by modification or created from observing what is given
> > in nature but yet undefined.
> >
> >
> > Karen Fu
>
|